No.1730587
It's not an ideology. An ideology needs ideas.
No.1730588
Whenever a retard ancap says muh venezuela I will just say back muh argentina.
No.1730589
Argentina isn't even ""ancap"" despite the larping. Ancap can never truely exist because it would be literal anarchy.
No.1730591
Because they think they'll be clever enough to bankrupt countries if given the chance to, most of them are wrong though.
No.1730594
>>1730588The arguments I've seen trying to cope with it are:
>Milei is not a true libertarian (lol,lmao even)>The economy would be good if not for the "leftists" who governed the country (if only Argentina had a left wing government)>The economy is in shambles and it's a good thing (complete brain damage)>Milei is a communist (I kid you not) No.1730598
>>1730594HOLY FUCK, LMAO THATS SOME SEVERE BRAIN DAMAGE.
No.1730652
I wholeheartedly support these tards if they're going to do to western countries what Yeltsin did to Russia.
No.1730653
>>1730587what is it then?
No.1730655
>>1730653Liberal nonsense.
No.1730658
>>1730655liberal nonsense are ideas tho. just stupid ones.
No.1730662
>>1730658Ideas without real objectives, therefore not a real ideology.
No.1730752
Milei recently said the World Economic Forum was Socialist.
No.1730813
>>1730752why would milei be a member of a socialist organization?
https://www.weforum.org/people/javier-gerardo-milei/uhh, ancapbros?
No.1730983
>>1730585It wasn’t real capitalism tho
No.1730989
the attachment people have to ancapism comes from it providing a convenient explanation for why the status quo is so obviously completely fucked that doesn't involve having to question any of the foundations of it. what it basically comes down to is the belief that actually the status quo is not status quo *enough*, which makes it somewhat interesting as a social phenomenon rather than any political theory worth taking seriously on that basis. ancap thinkers are either hypocritical losers whose entire careers were made possible by the state like Milton Friedman, or disillusioned ex-leftists like Murray Rothbard who never managed to take enough of a leap to criticize some particularly amerikan brainworms about "liberty" and shit like that. but their follower are all basically like, either somewhat clever NPCs or insecure 14 year olds who want to seem better than other people (which is why there's such an overlap between them and r/atheism types).
it's honestly very fash-adjacent even just with how it functions psychologically but it's somehow even more bland and pathetic than fascism because it still operates from within the same sterilized discourses of liberalism instead of at least trying to fake being a radical ideology.
>>1730587misunderstanding of what the word ideology means
No.1731049
>>1730594Critical support to Comrade Milei against Peronist revisionists
No.1731132
>>1730585Browsing and searching for some info about bankrupt Argentina and can't find any. Is it all in your deluded, bankrupt (DDR kek) brain only? I guess that it's just your "prediction" for now..
No.1731193
>>1731169“Rule of law” is such a buzzword. None of these fuckers follow the law and the law doesn’t apply to them to begin with.
No.1731215
>>1731193the only country to respect the fundamental human right to sell organs and children, thats the rule of law,
No.1731220
>>1730594>Milei is a communist (I kid you not)Did they actually?
No.1731235
>>1730989and it takes advantage of the egocentric bias that capitalist media has implanted on people. every teenager thinks they are the protagonist of the movie, the ancap discourse tells them that they are correct and that if they haven't yet reached the place they deserve at the top of society, it must be because of evil and stupid government regulations
they don't question the actual policies of existing ancap politicians or the feasibility of their unreachable utopia. but more remarkable is that they never question what place would they have in that utopia, even if it is tacitly understood that the majority of society would become wage-(or straight up plain) slaves
No.1731422
>>1730594>>Milei is a communist (I kid you not)Are you fucking shitting me
How the fuck do these people consistently manage to be even dumber than just open fascists
No.1731429
>>1730594one of the things, which i agree with, is that in the next months things will probably get better (for some people) and new statistics about le GDP and le wealth will be shown to prove it
but ultimetely the workers will suffer a lot
No.1731445
What are you talking OP. Argentina is far from bankrupt, the economy is actually getting healthier because devaluation allowed them to sell state assets at a very cheap rate to Blackrock and JP Morgan (whose agents filled the entire Millei cabinet) in essence this allowed them to financialize Argentina which will help with debts and allowed the economy to shift into an export oriented one. Expect Argentinian economy to stabilize in the coming months.
But this will come at the absolute decimation of the working population of Argentina. The working people will literally starve in the streets since all the food will be exported to Europe. But the upper middle class will enjoy the best time of their lives since they will get employment in all these financial multinationals and get paid in dollars, along with the currency stabilizing. It will be like the post-USSR but with steroids
No.1731449
https://whitesiadbarre.substack.com/p/mileis-shock-therapyA good resource about the absolute state of the Lolbert government in Argentina. Every single one of Milei's ministers are either from the WEF global capital types (JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Blackrock) or from regional Grupo America oligarchs like the Eurnekian conglomerate. And all of them are indicted in one corruption case or another. Never trust a lolbert when he says that he is against le big business
No.1731776
>>1731759THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT THAT ABOLISHES THE PRESENT STATE OF THINGS
No.1731777
>>1731449he did a good podcast on it, i like the bit about him basically being a eurneki court jester
No.1731780
>>1731759Milei going to the gates of heaven and St. Peter saying he wasn't dialectical enough.
Straight to hell.
No.1731802
>>173180050/50 this guy couldn't tell his cock from his balls
No.1731852
>>1730585There's two things that lend what airs of respectability to lolbert/ancap ideology it has
1) It has think tanks and billionaire funding. Basically any ideology that has official institutions behind it are going to be given an air of authority.
2) They're basically the "true believers" of liberalism. You can't truly tear into lolbert/ancap ideology without also tearing down many of the tenets and basic assumptions behind Western liberalism. You cannot, for instance, counter the claim that the US and "the West" became rich off of capitalism and a commitment to liberty without acknowledging imperialism. You cannot address the absurdity of an ancap society without acknowledging the basic class structure of the liberal capitalist state. So, liberals are unequiped to address ancap and lolbert ideology behind limp wristed moralizing.
No.1731854
>>1731852Beyond, not behind
No.1731883
>>1731800remember everyone, this guy totally isn't far right and when he taught his dog do heil hitler and filmed it it was 'a joke'
No.1731899
>>1731883I don't even think that. Count
DANKULA is everything wrong with right wing populism in a nutshell. A disorganised, gelatinous blob of weirdos with no principles or unifying ideas other than "freaze peach".
We live in a world today were a sizable group of people believe pudgy talking-heads on YouTube with fleshtunnels and ear piercings are statesman material.
Oh look at the fat Scot with the flesh tunnels and ear piercings who taught his dog to sieg heil on the internet, I'm sure he'll go down well with the voters.
Do you remember that speakers corner protest that he, paul joseph watson and some drag queen presented in London? Something about Tommy Robinson
deliberately confronting the police protesting for free speech and getting arrested for it, and you had twinky deplorables and 60 year old skinheads clapping and cheering to some drag queen talking about muslims and UKIP leaders talking vague populist nonsense and thinking that this is what the electorate care about the most.
It's a clown show.
No.1731956
>>1731800he got brainworms from too much dicksuck to people like Sargon of Akkad and PJW,
No.1731958
>the WEF is evil unless they say le based things, then I'm on board! I wanna eat ze buggggss!!!
No.1731962
>>1731800I love how the left gets shit for having soyboys but the right never gets any shit for having their own fatass phenotype.
No.1731965
>>1731962You could have pink hair, nose piercings and a buttplug inside you. The right will still give you a platform if you pander to nationalist sympathies.
No.1731969
More like Count Wankula
No.1732018
>>1731169god the lolberts who anti-worship klaus earswab as some kind of omnipotent devil with the power to ruin everything are so retarded
No.1732021
>>1732018But they worship him.
No.1732024
>>1732021they think he's a communist
No.1732034
>>1732024The lolberts are right to be afraid of his beaurcracy. But watch them all no longer talk about him now that he has openly expressed his fervant anti-communist beliefs with his Argentinian lacky.
No.1732036
>>1732034Well see this post
>>1731800 where these absolute retards will just square the circle and say the WEF is communist even though it's an extremist neoliberal think tank because they don't actually know what communism, or capitalism, or really anything at all is.
No.1732041
>>1732038Like I said, these people are barely even human, I'm surprised they can tie their own shoes
Communism is just 'vibes' to them
No.1732055
>>1731235this is true, I had also forgotten that a lot of ancaps seem to never question that in their ideal society they would very likely be in an even worse position materially than they are now. I guess a lot of these are probably middle/upper middle class white kids or young adult failson trust fund kids who haven't yet had to experience any real world alienation because they just rely on their rich parents to solve all their problems.
funnily enough a lot of them say shit like in a communist society you'd probably get put in a gulag instead of being a Party member because they just blindly follow like Cold War propaganda or 1984. they don't realize that from a completely objective basis of what the intentions are of politics, even if you'd argue many communist countries haven't been perfect, you have to at least admit that its literal goals and doctrine based on an extremely extensive economic theory of capital is to improve the lives of almost anyone. the goals of ancap on the other hand are quite explicitly to just make everything fundamental to the current state of the world (capital) *more* intensified, yet somehow this won't just make things worse. somehow they think it will magically improve everything.
this is coincidentally probably part of why they also tend to have fascist-adjacent beliefs and while not being like outwardly racist they will say shit like that the Nazis – an ideology whose doctrine was mainly to just do genocide – were as bad as the Soviets, or sometimes the Soviets were worse. they fundamentally don't care about any political or economic analysis and will pretty much make themselves ideologues of capital because they cannot imagine anything else.
No.1732056
>why do people still take Anarcho-capitalism seriously
So I want to address this in a slightly different manner from just saying "well it has institutional support." I think Anarcho-Capitalism and its cousins Libertarianism and Objectivism all share a common trait, which is that they're surprisingly good at worming their way into some basic education.
Look, I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone that America's education system is bad. But in particular its really bad with the humanities (in my view). "Intro to Philosophy" is basically unheard of outside college electives or maybe some highschool. When you learn of Socrates and Plato it's only extremely briefly and usually in the context of history ("Western civilization begins in ancient Athens with its great philosophers, like Plato!")
Because of a personal quirk, Ayn Rand basically thought every philosopher after Aristotle was a filthy moron who ruined the world (other than her, of course) and so when she turned Objectivism into a thing she unironically introduced a lot of people to Aristotle for the first time. Objectivism helped develop the philosophical framework for libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism, I believe it's where the Ur version of the NAP came from. Even though Objectivism never really broke into the philosophical or ideological mainstream, it still attracted a particularly annoying group of followers who actually achieved some notability in other fields. The concept of "Self-Esteem" in childhood psychology was pioneered by a student of Rand. If you go on YouTube you can find a ton of "Intro to philosophy" or "Intro to Aristotle" vids that are hosted by Objectivists. Some objectivists even offer free courses to explain Aristotle to people. And the thing is they have this veneer of being serious, they're really obsessed with the forms and categories of philosophy, so they can explain pretty well what "epistemology" is, and if you're an American chances are you don't even know what that word means so it seems smart to you.
Lolberts did something similar. I remember watching a video on the gold standard for my old highschool social studies course, and 3/4ths of the way through it talks about how gold is "real money" compared to fiat, and even though I had a pretty decent private education, my teachers weren't as autistic about this stuff as me, so they never noticed (fun fact, that's also how we ended up watching a Taliban propaganda video for a Law class). You want to learn about central banking? The Gold Standard? Lolberts have a ton of videos on it, and the insidious thing is people may generally learn about this at the same time as they're learn what Laissez-Faire means, so lolberts get to set the terms of the debate and definitions of things.
Even then, AnCaps and Lolberts argue with this veneer of academic formalism and philosophical formulas that can make some unprepared libs' heads spin. Y'know you think the poor should be fed, and they're coming at you with "what's your epistemology" or "what do you think of reality"? And if you try to engage in good faith its about as useless as a parent arguing with their uppity college kid who just learned what solipsism is ("Yo, how do we, like, know reality is real man?")
No.1732064
>>1732056I'd never considered this angle before but this actually makes a lot of sense and is really interesting to think about with the history of philosophy. because until fairly recently, it used to be that there wasn't the split between "continental" philosophers and "analytic" ones, but around the same time I think as when Ayn Rand was writing and when classical liberalism/lolbert/ancap were developing into distinct ideology is when there was no longer any real canon of philosophy. this probably is a consequence of Kant, because he so drastically changed the course of philosophy that everyone who's followed him has had to exist in his shadow somewhat and deal with the problems he introduces.
continentals focus on history more and tend to keep the spirit alive of working with the whole of western philosophy, but analytics pretty much just ignore everything to come before them except for the Greeks and Kant (sorta). they will talk about the Empiricists as well because that's within their genealogy of thought, but otherwise they basically exist to try to solve questions that exist within a vacuum. which is why they also place a lot of emphasis on formal logic.
it just occurs to me that what you're describing with ancaps is a very similar but much more dumbed down version. it's varying degrees in how much a group of thinkers that have both mainly existed in the anglosphere and advocated for some form of liberalism is willing to just completely arbitrarily select philosophers from the western canon, and go so far as to study them even, but pretty much only do it to make themselves sound smarter than other people so they can use sophistry to convince them that they're smarter than them and that the status quo of liberalism is actually completely fine. like they're kind of like, debate bro thugs for capital. it's kind of like the type of person I was describing here
>>1732055 but almost even more sociopathic.
No.1732160
>>1731800Don't you guys here just LOVE Big Business with its "central planning"? Walmart and Amazon are literally your prime examples of central planning "done right". And central, "nationalized" banking is literally one of your main postulates. Leftism incarnated kek - your only gripe is that it's not YOU who are pulling the strings; the system stays the same.
Well, that's what the WEF does. It's anti - free market competition.
No.1732163
>>1732160It's called Market Stalinism which is the purest form of Capitalism as it exists today. See Lenin's distinction between Nationalism for the benefit of the worker vs Nationalism for the benefit of the national bourgeoisie.
And the "Free Market" never existed, just like how Bourgeouis individual freedom never existed. The truth is that richer individuals are freer under bourgeois legal system, which is why rich people get away with things that would've killed a poor person. Just like how under the Libertarian "free market" richer imperial core nations are basically free to violate the property rights of the periphery and their respective hinterlands and do things that would've gotten a poorer nation sanctioned to hell and back
No.1732177
>>1732163It's absolutely irrelevant if Free Market existed or not existed in the past. We want it because it's better for the whole population, the employers and employees alike; you oppose it together with the current ruling caste (and the WEF) - and it's also irrelevant that you imagine different beneficiaries of your shared system.
Any "dictatorship" is repulsive to us, it isn't any better if it's the dictatorship of the "proletariat" instead of CEOs. You are reactionary; you stay 200 years behind the social developments.
No.1732180
>>1732160>Well, that's what the WEF does. It's anti - free market competition.And that’s capitalism, baby!
No.1732187
>>1732160Maybe you should learn what we actually believe instead of this strawman.
No.1732206
>>1732160>>1732177
>Start a small business>Make money>Open up another business>Make more money >Expand into your competitors territory>Make tons of money>Start to sell stock to fund further investments>Eat up most of the market in your particular industry, only real players are you and two or three other companies<“But what if someone tries to knock you out of the game like you did with your competitors?”>Buy out smaller businesses so they can’t grow into a threat >Those you can’t buy out, you undercut so they can’t make money>Pay politicians’ campaigns so regulation won’t negatively impact your bottom line>Hell, pay them so they can lock out new competitors (This is the point where lolberts will claim you’re a secret socialist)
>Establish total market dominance <Shareholders still want an increase in the rate of profit>Find new ways to squeeze the profit out of people>Turn your product into a “service” they can pay a subscription for >Sell all their data>Even if they hate it, it’s not like there’s much competition—in fact your competitors are doing the same fucking thing>You’ve acted entirely in the pursuit of profit<Lolberts will claim Capitalism is about self interest and freedom to do with your property what you want up until you actually do it and “win”<Then you’re expected to not act in your company’s best interest, nor your shareholders interests.<No, you should be willing to let yourself be unseated in the name of the holy free market No.1732207
>>1732206It's mostly that they don't know what capitalism even is. They will claim it's not real capitalism if the government is involved at all, even though the government is an essential part of capitalism.
No.1732218
>>1732207"They" don't care about your antiquated labels. They don't like the current system, duh. _You_ support the worst parts of the current system: business using the state apparatus to enforce its dominant market position.
No.1732219
>>1732218The worst part of the current system ? Seriously? Obivously corruption isn't good, but imperialism, slavery and child labor is much worst
No.1732221
>>1732218>business using the state apparatus to enforce its dominant market position.Since when do we want that? It is a deliberate outcome of capitalism, whether you like it or not.
No.1732222
>>1732218bruh ur entire ideology is basically glorified main character syndrome where you endlessly cuck and debase yourself to the capitalists actual fucking joke of an ideology and mindset
No.1732229
>>1732219Those are not parts of the current, western system.
No.1732232
There are three uncomfortable truths about capitalism which the lolbert and ancap ignore or try to argue away.
1. A lot of the problems they describe about capitalism are natural outgrowths of capitalism
2. What they call free market capitalism has never existed
3. Capitalism since even the beginning (cough mercantalism) required a state.
No.1732233
>>1732228Billionaires support (heck - create) gaberment regulations. You support regulations. And have the whole populations bear the costs of enforcing them, for the benefit of their makers.
No.1732235
>>1732220>They're just following their self-interestCertainly, everybody does (politicians too). We want them to abide by the rules while doing this.
No.1732238
>>1732235Why would they abide by the rules when it is not in their best interest. Hell they can make new rules that would serve their best interest.
No.1732240
>>1732235Where did they sign the “I won’t interfere with the free market” contract because it sounds like you want to enforce non-existent rules on them. This ain’t a board game, they have no imperative to—what—treat John Locke as scripture?
No.1732245
>>1732229Who do you think the kids in the Congo mine the cobalt for ?
No.1732248
To me lolbertarian ideology isn't even an economic ideology because if you actually focus on it's economic aspects it doesn't even have much in the way of economic wisdom, in fact libertarian ideology, when it comes down to it, is big standard liberal economics, particularly neoliberal economics. This is why libertarians love to world build when their ideas of tax cuts and so called smaller government never pan out on the real world because the real world is way more complicated and has way more complicated mechanics. There are tragically few macroeconomists who have actually done the hard work of trying to understand economics at the societal scale, Malthus was one, Keynes another and of course Marx. This is why Keynesians were so annoyed with the doctrine following Ricardians who stuck to their internal systems that only made sense under specific conditions aka small scale or individual company scale and tried to apply that to society as a whole which never worked out leaving massive gaps in economic policy. Of course Keynes broke from the mold but unfortunately his ideas ultimately would get swallowed up by neoliberals who use the Keynesian systems to prop up the macroeconomy while screwing over the little guy (their spending power).
I honestly think we've reached the pinnacle of those capitalist system and it's been dying since 2008 and there are no more financial instruments or economic discovery that'll prop capitalism up anymore. Of course there are MMTers but what they don't understand is that even if they "magically" got into power, who's to stop the corporations from artificially propping up prices in order to destroy our spending power. There is no way out anymore except revolution.
No.1732252
>>1732248>There are tragically few macroeconomists who have actually done the hard work of trying to understand economics at the societal scale, Malthus was one, Keynes another and of course Marxwhat about fredrich list?
No.1732255
>>1732248>Of course Keynes broke from the mold but unfortunately his ideas ultimately would get swallowed up by neoliberals who use the Keynesian systems to prop up the macroeconomy while screwing over the little guy (their spending power)It seems that you didn't even bother to check what libertarianism is about. Whole books were dedicated by them to criticize Keynesian economics and you maintain that WE are behind the "neoliberal" system.
Keynes literally _recommended_ funneling money from workers and consumers to the business (which supposedly was more productive) and YOU often _recommend_ his economic writing along with Marx ones. Tell me more about class traitors.
No.1732256
>>1732240We won't ask the slavers about their opinion on abolition.
No.1732257
>>1732256You're the slavers now
No.1732258
>>1732245The solution is to give those kids more options - of easier work first and then longer education followed by better and easier work. You are doing it by establishing _more_ wealth generating companies there, not less.
Historically Western companies were just stealing foreign goods under the umbrella of - state funded - cannon ships and enforced literal slave labor; today they give people options.
No.1732259
>>1732257Nah, we kick and scream. You support the regulations.
No.1732261
>>1732255There's a difference between theory and practice, especially when it comes to economics. Neoliberalism started out as a break from Keynesian economics and was led by many classical economists trying to revive Ricardian economics which dominated policy for over a hundred years until the Great Depression. In practice these neo-classicals realized quickly that the regular crises were returning and they most definitely wanted to avoid another Depression, so the Keynesian economics they eventually held on to is what we call neoliberalism today. That's why libertarians are so stupid because their economics is so backwards and so dated with current reality.
No.1732262
>>1732233Which regulatory costs are you talking about? There are many types of regulations from business ones to labor ones to government ones, each have their own regulatory bodies. What business out there is magically profitable telling workers "you can come and go whenever you like, we'll pay you whatever salary you want even if you decide to work for one hour for the whole week in our business!"
No.1732264
>>1732261You are just babbling sir - and you definitely didn't do your homework. Austrians are not Ricardians (the classicals) - nor neoclassicals - and they are not the Keynesians either. They seem to be a good enough strawman for you though.
No.1732265
>>1732258If you give companies the option to use children they're going to use children, the actual solution is for the congolese state to nationalise these mines and prevent child slavery there,
"Historically" ? Thats still the case today, they just don't get the explicit support of their state anymore
>>1732259No, I support exeucting every capitalists and completly destroying the capitalist system, Don't call me a social democrat please
No.1732268
>>1732262You are paying for the police which enforces the patents and anti-competitive industry regulations for example - like it's illegal in the US to build a new hospital without the permission of the Medical Association run by your future (supposed) competition. I am saying that it's never "the rich" who are paying for this shit. If it exists at all then we are paying for it.
No.1732269
>>1732264Which Austrians are you specifically talking about? If you're not talking out of your ass which I suspect you are since you haven't made a single point against mine except: nuh uh.
No.1732271
>>1732268Money doesn't grow on trees, I don't know what you think I'm paying for. The only way the greenback can enter our economy is by government spending. A corporation doesn't create nor mint their own money and neither does the banks even.
If you were to start your own little bank you need American dollars to lend out, dollars that can only come from the government. There used to be a time when money was not a monopoly and that caused a whole bunch of issues. One monopoly issuer of money makes trade way easier. You'll see this with any historical state from Rome to now the best circulating currency for trade was usually government minted coin.
No.1732275
>>1732269Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe as general economists. Also see Hazlitt's The Failure of the New Economics with detailed critique of Keynesianism in particular.
No.1732276
>>1732268Reminder that the taxpayer doesn't "pay for" anything. If you knew anything about money you would already know this.
No.1732277
>>1731800>be neo-liberal think tank>invite rabid libertarian that aligns with your agenda>rabid libertarian drops a speech that your whole think tank agrees with>Schwab openly thanks the libertarian guest for his speech<this is somehow proof that the WEF is socialist and Milei #owned them60k likes, the fucking resistance everyone.
No.1732282
>>1732275I just checked out who Hazlitt was and what do you know, the most celebrated neoliberal economists like Friedman saw his work as important in forming his political thought, which applied to the US and many other states did cause alot of problems unforseen by them for some reason which eventually led to the thing libertarians hate the most, the printing of money to save ailing businesses. I find it also weird that so many conservative and libertarian economists cry and scream about government intervention until they see it as a necessity to keep them going. But hey I respect the fact that you hold fast to your beliefs, at least you're not a centrist that accepts the way things are now as unchanging and perfect. But you are delusional if you don't think that these folks weren't the ones that brought about neoliberalism. Neoliberalism spawned out of that very criticism of Keynes towards a more "classical" outlook. Loved by libertarians the world over. The delusion comes not from your just "believing" in smaller government or less taxes, but from not recognizing your own libertarians actually influencing policy and leading to the shitty reality we're in right now. If a socialist doing economic policy is creating problems I'll be the first to admit it, but you libertarians are in capable of self reflection it seems.
No.1732284
>>1731800>The corporations are socialistIs Count Dankula unironically retarded? Genuine question, does he have some form of down syndrome? It can't be because people with down syndrome should be smarter than this. I can expect an American to say something like this but a Brit? What's happening with the water across the pond?
No.1732287
>>1732277>>1731800I guarantee none of those people watched anything from the WEF directly, only through youtube conspiracy videos about white genocide, so they think WEF is the illuminati, pretty much.
No.1732288
>>1731445I dont believe it. Thats cope so delusional that even in Yeltzins cabinet, few would dare to spill.
Milei and Yeltzin are the same bs
No.1732309
>>1732284>Is Count Dankula unironically retarded?Is there any rightoid who isn't?
No.1732310
>>1731776Leprechaun Dengism
Socialist billionaires = no contradiction
No.1732313
>>1731962Soyboys are liberals anon. During the 8chan days, we used to mock them too.
No.1732316
>>1731962These guys are just soyboys but have a fatter gut, a bigger beard, wraparound sunglasses and a hat. They don’t look much different than Agent Kochinski.
No.1732320
>>1732309Nah, they're reactionaries, if one's political positions are formed solely on reaction rather than scientific observation, then one is happy to operate on ignorance.
It's why they so often complain about their freeze peach, because their reactions are usually wrong and easily disproven by thoses who have observed, they need reaction to unopposable by observation otherwise their life is just an endless source of embarrassment where people tell them
>wrong>wrong>wrongAnd that's why they're dangerous.
No.1732328
>>1732160The free market is not real, nor is central planning. I know even socialists sometimes fall for "government does stuff" dichotomy but stop thinking that way.
No.1732474
>>1732328A market cannot exist without government. Who the fuck would open and regulate it unless billionaires are opnely admitting corruption.
No.1732524
>>1732160there will never be a free market.
No.1732529
>>1730653a cope and a refusal to accept that markets and capitalism has always needed a state.
No.1732544
>>1732529>>1732524>>1732474>>1732328yeah, all you need to read is fredrich list's national system of political economy and realize huh capitalism required a quite interventionist state from the beginning.
No.1733146
>>1732529Don't know about "capitalism" but black markets exist without a state.
No.1733153
>>1733146They wouldn't without state backed money existing.
No.1733161
this retarded lolbert is salivating at the mouth at this thread, you can tell that every post he writes he's really happy and smug about. but he doesnt know that were laughing at him for being a retard, not laughing with him.
notice how literally every sentence he writes is a straw man
No.1733163
ancap leads to a state because a state is needed for capitalism for work. capitalists created this state for themselves. who do you think the state works for? capitalists you fucking retard.
No.1733166
>>1733165
what this shit for brains fascist needs to read is das kapital. he has no idea what hes talking about
No.1733167
>>1732233>Billionaires support (heck - create) gaberment regulations. You support regulations. And have the whole populations bear the costs of enforcing them, for the benefit of their makers.say the word "regulations" more without specifying which ones youre talking about
you dont support regulations enforcing that flour isnt cut with sawdust? if not, you are a fucking retard. but i guess you dont really understand how a modern society works do you. regulations are an admittance by capitalists that capitalism doesnt work and they need a state to force them all to not race to the bottom. thats how capital and profit works.
No.1733171
>>1733168
exactly. thats why he needs to read it. then he wont be spewing bullshit about how the reason the state is bad is because it takes taxes used for regulations. its hilarious how he pretends to oppose the state but for the exact same reasons the bourgeois does in their class warfare against us.
No.1733177
>>1733156
>There have always been slave markets
prove the existence of slave markets in early human history (circa 200,000 years ago). You can't. you don't have the archeological evidence.
No.1733180
>>1733174
id like to think that, it would be nice to imagine lolberts are just kinda right-wing-cultured anarchists who don't know it yet, who themselves don't know yet that they're just communists who haven't read a history book yet, but in reality when you speak to these lolberts about for instance their beliefs on social policies for example, they show their cards pretty quick with the racism, misogyny, classism, eugenics, and all the other shit typical of fascists.
No.1733181
>>1733156
Poor example, slavery was being enforced by states. See the Fugitive Slave Act or the Confederate States conscripting southern poor to fight for the "right" of plantation owners who were exempt from conscription kek.
But people in prisons (or concentration camps) for example have been using cigarettes as money - and cigarettes (and tobacco) has become a part of "illegal" trade themselves recently due to ridiculous taxation. "Illegal" work (?) is a part of the free market too.
No.1733184
>>1732233>billionairesI refuse to do the succdem "billionaires" jargon which implies that sub-billionaire bourgeoisie don't exploit
Capitalists (
whether billionaire or not)
regulate insofar as the regulations in question enable them to accumulate capital and drive competition from the market and disempower workers and they
deregulate insofar as the deregulations in question enable them to accumulate capital and drive competition from the market and disempower workers. So a capitalist will support a regulation like Taft-Hartley which weakens labor unions, while also supporting a deregulation that allows capitalists to treat workers worse. Government in a capitalist political economy is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a class, because they are the ruling class, and are able to lobby, bribe, threaten, and coerce "elected representatives" to represent them instead of their communities and constituencies. Politicians vomit up rhetoric meant to please the working class in public, while in smoke filled back rooms they take bribes from capitalists, and as regulatory capture by the bourgeoisie becomes more complete, they become elected representatives themselves, eliminating the illusion of democracy, and taking the mask off of the capitalist oligarchy. Someone like Dick Cheney getting a $100 million severance package from Haliburton and then becoming vice president immediately afterwards represents a huge conflict of interest. Obviously all political actions as vice president were designed to benefit himself and the people he had schmoozed with his whole life in the private sector. Privatization of the public sector itself through "public/private partnerships" is meant to decrease confidence in government, and increase the perception that the solution to "bad government" is to run everything like a business, and hand over what scraps remains of public property to the bloodthirsty pigs of the private sector.
No.1733193
>>1733167>you dont support regulations enforcing that flour isnt cut with sawdust?I don't support them, they are costly and redundant because consumers can enforce products quality perfectly well under the threat of bankrupting shady producers.
Recently you can buy quite a lot of foods marketed with "no preservatives" or "no glutamine" labels for example without any state regulations about this - just the _possibility_ that they might be harmful was enough for producers to give people an option of avoiding it.
Btw, the court system which holds business responsible for its word would be helpful (though not strictly necessary either) but private courts did historically exist and we endorse them.
No.1733194
>>1733146>Don't know about "capitalism" but black markets exist without a state.Most black markets are operated by criminal cartels which act as limited, illicit states.
No.1733195
>>1733193Why so afraid of regulations?
No.1733197
>>1733188>As a matter of fact, Lenin saw socialism as nationalized monopoly.Yes. Although i like the term "oligopoly" to refer to businesses that have nowhere else to go to but the state for nationalisation.
No.1733206
>>1733197>businesses that have nowhere else to go to but the state for nationalisation.nationalization is by definition performed by the state. The only differences is whether it is a proletarian state that does it or not.
No.1733210
>>1733195Everybody could see that the king is totally naked if they didn't pretend that they do it for our good (and occasionally throwing some crumbs at us). Their "services" are unnecessary at best, mostly outright harmful.
Humans aren't supposed to be governed.
No.1733213
>>1733210>Humans aren't supposed to be governed.Then why do you support capitalism instead of a classless system?
No.1733216
>>1733210No, the natural unit of organization for humans is a tribe. Retarded settler mentality of one family living on a farm on newly colonized lands is not natural
No.1733256
>>1733254America is a true anarchist society
No.1733257
>>1732284>high expectations of britsAmericans are more highly evolved brits
No.1733259
>>1733254Social anarchists don't propose an "ungoverned society," but a society where governance is horizontal, democratic and largely ad-hoc. Some anarchists will deny that this is governance.
This is somewhat different to libertarian and ancap ideas of "not being governed." They envision a society where essentially every man is a baron unto himself, either owning some crappy little farm or small business where they are the absolute monarch.
No.1733359
>>1733193youre utterly delusional. no, they WILL sell you bread with sawdust because they WILL get away with it long enough for it to be worth profit. they can then just make a new company name or something or just spread propaganda
you dont really know anything about the development of capitalism do you?
fucking dipshit
"consumers can regulate it themselves"
bitch i dont want to do a background check every time i buy a loaf of bread, i want to take it off the shelf and go home. fucking moron. where am i going to figure out which breads are poison and which are food?
you are so fucking stupid and idealist
No.1733377
>>1730653A mental disorder
No.1733378
>>1733375>fascist dead kennedys fanquelle surprise
No.1733381
>>1733378Avarage self described lolbert
No.1733547
>>1731169>that mp4politics for guys who watched The Matrix and actually said "wow this is deep"
No.1733583
>>1731429They might pull a Russia and put all the blame on the guy who did the dirty work and have his successor take the credit for an economic upturn that still leaves most workers destitute and far worse off than before.
No.1733598
>>1731169god damn, that mp4 goes hard as fuck unironically
No.1733605
>>1730585>why do people still take Anarcho-capitalism seriouslyThey dont outside of america and argentina.
No.1733647
>>1733181You should read David Graeber. Using tokens for trade is something that is only more recent, like cigs in prison like you say. Credit has lasted way longer in society, thousands of years. IOUs were these credit items which definitely didn't act like money or a currency system at least.
No.1734092
>>1733647But monetary exchange was a very important discovery in our history; think of language, fire, tools, agriculture - then money (most likely it all happened before parasitic states came to be btw).
The excerpt is from Rothbard's "The case against the FED" and the calculation problem mentioned in the last paragraph was well recognized by the leaders of the Soviet Union who struggled to efficiently organize the economy without prices. Oskar Lange had attempted to solve it with a blessing of Stalin but couldn't do it.
No.1734103
>>1733605We were the strongest in Brazil; Argentina was a pleasant surprise.
Watch your back, you never know.
No.1734116
>>1734092>then money (most likely it all happened before parasitic states came to be btw)That's objectively untrue. Bronze age palace economies operating via in-kind trade, payment, etc long predated anything resembling modern currency.
No.1734179
>>1734116It is about tokens of exchange, like sea shells animal skins, salt etc. M. Friedman in one of his books describes a "primitive" tribe which used "ownership" of large rocks which couldn't even be moved as money; quite advanced idea if you ask me.
Anyway, we can't really be sure (about Graeber's theories too) but the history isn't really that important; we are not destined to repeat it, continue it or whatever.
No.1734183
>>1734132
>The state is a natural outgrowth of expanded trade that helps to enforce property rights
The state is a parasitic being which could only arise AFTER we were advanced enough to be physically able to sustain an unproductive, bloodthirsty caste.
No.1734188
>>1734183>The state is a parasitic being How do you figure this? The state maintains a social order and perpetuates relations of production, which in turn are the means by which society reproduces itself. Without it those relations would break down, including capitalism. Even from a pro-capitalist viewpoint it's absolutely essential.
No.1734192
There can never be a free market because what that essentially entails is there would be no regulation in the billionares of the world to effectively own every single thing you apparently "own". Everything would be rented by the small group of corporations who own the dwelling you live in, the food you eat and the place that you work at.
No.1734228
>>1730989>but their follower are all basically like, either somewhat clever NPCs or insecure 14 year oldsdont forget the arrogant econ grad students and the economists who failed out of academic and ended up working for a right wing think tank
No.1734242
>>1734232>right wing "rebels". An ideology where its entire purpose boils down to licking rich people's ass. Its core values are so open to the public yet you'll see it adopted by middle class, Gadsden flag waving, gun-carrying supporters passing as dissenters against the systemtheres a difference between folk "libertarianism" and libertarianism proper. the average trump maga boomer is a folk libertarian who has never read Hayek but who just combines civil nationalism of worshipping the founding fathers, guns and weed and a bunch of guys who want to larp as sons of anarchy or start a small business so they don't have to get bossed around any more. This is basically derived from the interaction of scots-irish and west country immigrants with a frontier society where literacy and regular church attendance was low so anti intellectual forms of christianity (i.e. evangelicalism, fundamentalism) developed and they practiced honor culture derived from herding practices. Basically they are descended from what are essentially the Bedouins of north america. The weird combination of a preference for high religiosity and social conservatism combined with rhetoric about freedom and cowboy-larping. Its more like a herdsman's conception of freedom where individualism is combined with honor/vengeance.
>The “backcountry” of the British colonies were settled by Scots-Irish immigrants from the borderlands of England and Scotland. The men and women who survived these war-torn marches did so through cultivating a reputation for savagery. The backcountryman put clan over community. Not for him was the New England township or the small groups of farmsteads that dotted the Delaware River Valley. Instead, backcountrymen spread their farms across the mountainsides, careful to build their cabins miles apart from those closest to them. The backcountryman honored strength and charisma, but had no respect for rank or hierarchy. Authority was weak in his world, and that is how he liked it. He rejected outsiders. He rejected the learning of the university men. The backcounty wrapped its patriotism in the imagery of rattlesnakes, hornet nests, and alligators; they did not invent the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me” but nowhere was it more popular than among America’s Scots-Irish migrants. No.1734259
>>1734232>Its core values are so open to the public yet you'll see it adopted by middle class, Gadsden flag waving, gun-carrying supporters passing as dissenters against the system.well yeah. it's a petit bourgeois ideology, which is exactly why it appeals to suburbanite small business tyrants and their failsons
No.1734262
>>1734179>Graeber's theoriesthe barter myth was discredited by anthropology and archeology. Graeber just repeated their findings in his book on debt. This isn't his hypothesis.
No.1734289
>>1734261Yes
It was actually "gift economies" which preceded money, not barter. Economies based on establishing trust between people and tribes. The barter myth underlies the assumption of rational, equal exchange as a justification for capitalism's conditions just being "human nature".
We even see in different animal communities and plant cultures the sharing of resources, not their monopoly.
Marx too shows that capitalism's "primitive accumulation" was based on state power, not saving. Monopoly of power has always been based on class interest, not organic relations.
No.1734307
>>1734289also barter, insofar as it occurred at all, occurred between communities which did not yet trust each other or speak the same language. Basically long distance trade for things you couldn't get where you lived with people you didn't trust took the form of barter. The vibe you get from a "suitcase exchange" scene in a crime thriller is what barter actually was, which is why it was so limited and impractical for most things.
No.1734686
>>1734242>Basically they are descended from what are essentially the Bedouins of north america. Reminds me of all the accounts of unexpected cultural affinity between rich Texan cattle/oil magnates and Saudi nobility. They both love horses, guns, fast cars, and ostentatious displays of wealth.
No.1734732
>>1734232>It's like seeing a jew defending an SS officer or a serf defending his landlord.It's more like seeing a Wehrmacht defending an SS officer or a soldier defending the feudal lord. The petit bourgeois reactionary suburbanite waving the gadsden flag is not an oppressed proletariat. They've come into a small amount of private property and they are fiercely loyal to the system because they don't want to go back to being lumpenproles. Lumpens often hustle their way out of their class status by adopting a crab bucket mindset and throwing their fellow working class people under the bus of capital. They sell drugs and lick boots to come into a small amount of capital, and then once they have that capital, they have zero incentive to be loyal to the proletariat, which they never were in the first place.
No.1735206
so how exactly is the argentine economy is doing right now
No.1735243
>>173520625% inflation in a month
No.1735263
>>1735243more like 200% inflation, anon
No.1735320
>>1735243really?
>>1735250idk how an ancap would make the argentinian inflation better
>>1735263kek
No.1735370
>>1735263It's already 200% since the 1st of January.
Milei took office in 10th of December, although you could argue that this is still the result of the previous administration. We'll see how it's going in February since he enacted a lot of shock measures that are supposed to start making a change quickly.
No.1735411
>>1735370my guess is he will basically be the thatcher of argentina where he will be hated by the working class and unions but his changes will be retconned to be "necessary"
No.1735459
>>1734289Whatever, the gift economy is even less efficient than straight barter. It is also a misnomer because you were expected to be "given" something back later on (so it was still an exchange) - but there was no value calculation at all in this; you would completely ruin any modern economy if you attempted to run it like this. Btw, you wont be off if you just call this organization a delayed barter.
You could try to make a case that people would have been _happier_ in this system but it's a different discussion altogether. Marx has lost the moment he promised the workers "better material conditions".
No.1735493
>>1730594>Milei is a communist (I kid you not)Real anarcho capitalism has never been tried.
No.1735796
>>1735459How about read a book?
No.1736173
Why is anarchy taken seriously at all? Obviously education is failing
No.1736183
>>1736174
>Just look at videos where people pay for another persons groceries - they break down crying and so on.
It happens because it's a true voluntary gift; there are no emotions if people receive some gaberment dole. Charity meant something in the past.
Curiously, "the gift" implies private (exclusive) ownership - or transfer of ownership. If prehistoric people were exchanging some tools (spears, hand axes) then you already have a "private ownership of the means of production" all right back then.
No.1736187
>>1736183>then you already have a "private ownership of the means of production" all right back thenNot in any meaningful sense since every member of such a community would have been able of easily acquiring them. Besides, there's a huge difference between unquantified and informal reciprocity in a gift economy and proper market exchange. Gift economies functioned out of a sense of moral/communal obligation, not a profit motive.
No.1736216
>>1736208
>Ive often heard of great support for philanthropy from libertarian thinkers
"Philanthropy" in capitalism is just giving back a small portion of something you stole. It's not a noble thing, it just means buying reputation.
No.1736256
>>1736218
How is that an alienation? Because there is no human doing the transaction
>>1736208
I don’t think the theme of the film is charity but selflessness. George consistently puts others before himself, at the cost of his own health, wealth and dreams. Hell his adult life is basically him running a credit union for the community ala affordable housing and shit.
What I suspect Kappa wanted to portray or appeal to, is to romanticise the sacrifice that George consistently made and the presence of the handicapped banker to make the sacrifice necessary.
A socialist or even a liberal would have written to see the handicapped banker beaten up ala that SNL skit, but Kappa needs these people to gives opportunities for the Georges of the world to step up. In a way wealthy philanthropists need the poor to need charity so that the former can feel good about themselves. It is like catholic indulgence.
No.1736263
>>1736218>>1736256Alienation of labor is when you as a worker just follow retarded rules on your work, like never fixing an annoying leaking pipe because it always was there, and it ain't your or your coworkers' job to fix it, because, again, it's not your problem, it's not your company, not your product/service being affected by the leaking pipe, it's your boss' trouble, and boss not fixing anything and not caring about the working conditions is just obvious.Even if you try to fix the pipe, nobody would praise you, give you a premium, nobody would be happy about it, and it maybe even that the pipe getting fixed was scheduled with somebody already, and you fixing actually took away somebody's paycheck.
Alienation of labor - is a feeling of powerlessness and disaffection towards your work, the understanding that doing the minimal amount of work is the best course of action for your well-being. Thus absolute abysmal unsupervised work performance by workers, thus the objective need for management to be harsh and abusive. If workers were allowed to run the place, they would be much, much happier about their "second home" and would want to improve it, they would be enthusiastic about it; but since that "second home" can just like boot the workers out at any sign of financial trouble, since there is the need to lick the boots of managers and bosses, approve every decision with them and have a real risk of being hated on for even proposing some improvements, workers learn to never be enthusiastic about their job, it's a learned behaviour of helplessness
No.1736265
>>1736256To marx money is the alienated substance of value because it is the medium of exchange, and thus is is a self-separate object by its universal equivalence; a commodity which is not a commodity. This is a contradiction in the money-form which gives potential to the exploitation of labour. Thats why marxists generally want to get rid of the value-form; or money.
Alienation thus is the self-separateness of an object by means of its self-relation, by mediation. The philanthropy of a capitalist is the returning of a lost object, but by its elective discretion, the same way the state directs funds to projects.
In each case the object of distribution is mediated; alienated, and thus allows for a self-relation of value, like money. But in the example of being bailed out versus being gifted to, the interface of this mediation determines our enjoyment of expropriation - thus it is a qualitative aspect not a quantitative one.
Its to say that if we got the full value of our labour in a paycheck its much less enjoyable than getting it later by a de facto theft (like in a pension or social security), because to relate to eachother we must objectify ourselves in a medium of exchange, where primitively it was the gift, while today its money.
Basically, its a critique of marxism's focus on erasing contradictions - we as humans are oriented toward the *quality* of our sociality rather than the quantitative reward. The "economism" of marxism is the same beast as in libertarian thought that must be slain.
>In a way wealthy philanthropists need the poor to need charity so that the former can feel good about themselves. It is like catholic indulgence.I dont disagree. Think of the end of christmas carol; how scrooge is redeemed from a pitiful life of cruelty for a day of charity. Its definitely a self-serving thing. But the *form* of the act is more important than the *content* in any case. Its the person of scrooge which is given priority, even if he is merely a mechanism of vengeful ghosts.
>>1736263This is a vulgar understanding of alienation. Alienation is the estrangement of labour from its direct value into a mediated object. Money is the main form of alienation as the value-form.
No.1736534
>>1730585Anarcho-capitalism is essentially the maximum individualist power fantasy. It would work in a world where every individual is completely and totally self-sufficient like a demigod.
In the actual world it would devolve into slavism in a few weeks.
Now, any rational individual would understand this, but since billionnaires do a lot of propaganda, it manages to stay revelant.
No.1736547
>>1736265Compare your explanation of alienation to mine
>>1736263 Mine is clearly more understandable to ordinary people, so…
No.1736549
>>1736547>>1736265Also, there was a thread and/or post no so long ago somewhere here, on the bullshit jobs. Go read up how workers themselves describe those bullshit jobs they are doing, and realize what exactly alienation from labor is. Nobody cares about anything, and you get money for it
No.1736693
>>1736547>>1736549I use the term scientifically, not colloquially
Also there are easier ways of describing it "my" way (though, marx is often quite verbose in his descriptions):
Alienation is when our labour is represented by an external object or symbol, which mediates our relation to the value embodied in it, rather than directly, in our expropriation of this value.
Money as the value-form; that is, the social form of Value (or "universal equivalent"), alienates labour from its product by its crystalisation. This holds Value in reserve, and so is hoarded by those who possess the most money.
There are many types of alienation, but they all refer to the way our experience is *mediated* by external objects.
If you read marx closely he admits that there will always be Value (SNLT) in society and so there will always be a value-form of sorts. Most marxists propose a type of "labour voucher" like those implemented by the utopian socialists to make up for this *contradiction*, where socialism as a development from capitalism, is, as marx describes a "negation of negation", where private property reverts back to social property.
In terms of trade we can thus also assume a reversion of M-C-M to C-M-C, where marx describes commodities as pertaining to equal use-values in free exchange.
So marxism in my interpretation is not about the end of exchange but the *true* liberation of exchange, and so a fulfilment of liberalism and modernity.
Thats why i think the critique of alienation is something to not be taken too fundamentally. Capital arises by the contradictions of the value-form (the same contradictions which underpin marx's "irrational commodity" of money-capital), but the correcting of the medium of exchange would mean the end of capital (by the equivalence of Value to its object of exchange, instead of the transcendental position money has to *rent* labour-power as a commodity - where the fatal flaw of liberalism is its discouragement of renting, yet is presupposed upon it, explored by marx in vol. 3).
Anyway, sorry for rambling. All i mean to say is that marx should be read in his own terms. But most dont even read him at all.
Alienation is a necessary part of life. A things are caught in analogy. This is the popular turn of marx into hegel in the academy.
Also look up "bio-semiotics" for interesting ideas and a rude awakening.
No.1736696
>>1730589>be literal anarchyBased
No.1736703
>>1731169Honestly, we should just increase the schizoposting
No.1736776
>>1732218>(This is the point where lolberts will claim you’re a secret socialist)nailed it
>>1732218>business using the state apparatus to enforce its dominant market position.picrel
No.1736778
>>1736776Marx on primitive accumulation too also shows how the advent of private property was by a violent exorcism of the feudal communes by the state, where all natural relations are thrown into disarray (alll that is solid melts into air).
No.1737154
>>1736776If by "capitalism" you mean the current system then we don't want it and I've already said it. Picrel is idiotic, ALL systems known to man - besides anarchism - need a state. And we are fucking anarchists.
YOUR system needs a state, not ours kek.
No.1737158
>>1737154The current system is neoliberal, which gives more economic power to the banks and corporations. Each time capitalism has reformed over the past 200 years it has given more power to the monopoly capitalist and international corporations.
No.1737159
>>1733454Don't link Italian if you want a fast response you fucktard.
This was a case of a clear homicide - these things happen in "regulated" environments too.
No.1737160
>>1737154>And we are fucking anarchistsYou can't be both a capitalist and an anarchist.
No.1737167
>>1737154Any system with class distinctions requires a state, since containing these is the entire reason for its existence.
No.1737168
>>1737160What can I say - I have attempted to show the example of black markets or our historic pre-states development to indicate that your statement is unfounded. If you still aren't convinced there's not much more I can do.
Actually I think that people really need a current working example - theoretical deliberation can only convince already convinced.
No.1737170
>>1737168>there's not much more I can doYou can try learning what capitalism is.
No.1737179
>>1737171All I see is you unwilling to learn. If someone claimed to be both a monarchist and an anarchist wouldn't you think they are a retard who doesn't know what a monarchy is?
No.1737191
>>1737179not the best thing to say to a lolbert given that they have their own "libertarian monarchism"
No.1737204
>>1737179What you are saying is that the _current system_ (with a state) needs a state. It's tautology; I can't argue with _that_.
You are a fucking donkey if YOU still can't understand. Trade (and private property) trivially doesn't require a state and this is all we want.
No.1737209
>>1737204Please learn what private property means. It absolutely needs a state.
No.1737214
>>1737168Markets and classes aren't equivalent, so you're just dancing around my point. The existence of classes by definition means the existence of irreconcilable interests stemming from the division of labour. What prevents these divisions from exploding into violence without the overwhelming violence of the state?
>>1737204>Trade (and private property) trivially doesn't require a stateLmao, so what happens if a bunch of tenants decide to lynch their landlord? Who is going to protect his property rights without a state?
No.1737228
>>1737214Private security. Historically caravan guards or mercenaries. Or buy yourself a fucking cannon.
Also private court system. Historically Rome had one. Also Medieval Merchant Law courts and current private business arbitration courts as examples.
If I pick up some berries they are mine. If I whittle myself a flute it is mine too. Simple as that and doesn't require the Dialectical Materialist analysis.
The state can happen anyway like syphilis can happen despite precautions but it isn't inevitable.
No.1737236
>>1737228>Private security. Historically caravan guards or mercenaries. Or buy yourself a fucking cannon.Then in what sense is a property owner different from a state? What if a group of landlords pool their resources for collective security? How is that different from a state?
>If I pick up some berries they are mine. If I whittle myself a flute it is mine too.Bitch this isn't the Shire, production is highly socialized. You need to actually grapple with the questions raised by class divisions, where the physical producers are different from those who appropriate the benefits of production.
No.1737239
>>1737214Under Ancapistan, each individual pork will have his own private security to protect his capital/land, which is actually reminiscent of the late middle ages. Ancaps should read about mercenaries during the Renaissance. Muh private forces has been done before and was disastrous.
No.1737276
>>1737168>confusing markets with capitalismcapitalism is several historically contingent things that came long after markets, usury, mercantile trade, etc… Capitalism is:
<post-feudal <privatization of the common lands<the hearding of ex-peasants into the urban centers (proletarianization)<primitive accumulation by disposession<industrialization<wage labor as the majority form of labor<commodity production as the general form of production<profiting off of surplus value and using it to expand production.<competition between capitalists that leads to monopoly. Capitalism is not the medieval bazaar.
>black marketsare full of backstabbing and violence and disrespect of your precious property relations because there's no state to enforce property law. If I go to sell illegal drugs to someone and they hold me at gunpoint and steal my drugs and don't give me the money, I have no legal recourse, because there is no state-sanctioned justice system I can appeal to in order to uphold an illegal transaction. The drugs are gone and I'm lucky I wasn't shot and buried in a ditch.
No.1737277
>>1737204please explain how to uphold property relations without property laws sanctioned by a governing body
No.1737296
>>1737236The difference is that states exercise power over property which isn't legitimately theirs (we have the "homestead principle" to determine that) and don't rely on voluntary transactions (and only that) to acquire income. If somebody has attempted to collect a "rent" for a home you had build on an undeveloped land (or legitimately bought) it would be an attempt of establishing a state. But if he collects a rent because you live in a home that he has build then it's fine for us. There is a problem of legitimacy - states to exactly _the same_ that an abusing wanna be landlord would do but they managed to convince the public that _their_ actions are legitimate. What they do would be met with outrage if a "private" person had attempted it and it's unlikely that he would succeed without the whole deceitful propaganda.
We pretty much reject the Marxist claims of stolen surplus value and class conflict but that would be a topic of whole another - and a long one - discussion.
No.1737312
>>1737305Fuck off to your tree.
No.1737336
>>1737312Call the McPolice(tm) and make me, bitch.
No.1737337
>>1737191It just shows their deep retardation
No.1738103
>>1737296>But if he collects a rent because you live in a home that he has build then it's fine for us.My biggest problem with right-libertarian thinking is its obsession with these autistic rules to the complete detriment of practical freedom. What does it matter in a practical sense if you're born on the estate of a landlord and have to grow up renting from him, or if you're a freeholder who is conquered? The practical experience for the tenant is the same, the power relation and domination of one person over another is the same. You're drawing this distinction based on the origins of the relationship rather than its substance. You're fine with relations of violent domination and subordination practically identical to those of the state as long as it checks some autistic boxes.
No.1738105
>>1737340Lol what, people making that much weren't being taxed already?
No.1738115
>>1737154REAL CAPITALISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED
No.1738136
>>173813524 - 21.5 = 2.5
2.5 hours to get back home and back to work again. It's just enough time where you can commute, but not get rest. It's ingenious in its evil, really.
No.1738140
>>1738135yeah but muh gorillian soyjaks in a gulag somewhere
No.1738142
>>1738103>>1737296homestead principle has a lot of problems, not least of which it is more like a parable and ahistorical and has nothing to do with the actual known history/anthropology of the origins of private property, capitalism, and the state.
Likewise with the evolution of money currency from barter proposed by Adam smith: it never happened.
This is the problem with economics and libertarianism in general, they create these just-so stories and parables which are not really accurate.
Even if we take this seriously what it really means is the first generation of settlers get everything and every subsequent generation is fkd because the finite resource of land is now used up.
Really just seems like a justification for landlord/capitalist domination by making the currently inherited property sacred.
Also when did mixing labor with property stop being a justification for eventually owning it? Why was a homesteader on the western frontier actually mixing his labor with land? the natives didn't count? And does a factory worker mix his labor with the property of the factory? if so its a justification for socialism since the workers should eventually own the means of production.
No.1738144
>>1737154private property cannot exist without enforcement otherwise the only thing you can own is what you can physically possess. Absentee ownership requires some third party to stop other people from controlling things which you arent there to physically defend. You can claim that this third party isnt a state because of xyz but IMO thats kind of just cope.
No.1738148
>>1738142>This is the problem with economics and libertarianism in general, they create these just-so stories and parables which are not really accurate.Especially when you start to question how something like the homestead principle could possibly be implemented today. If the libertarians succeeded in destroying the current "crony" capitalist system as they claim they want to do, then what happens next? Vast swathes of land remain in the hands of monopolistic corporations which they supposedly dislike, and which according to their own thinking acquired their land and wealth via illegitimate collaboration with the state. Would they… seize this wealth? Would they redistribute it?
No.1738157
>>1738156>because only whitey's mixing of land with labor countsThe irony of course being that there were sedentary Indigenous societies that practiced permanent agriculture, built permanent settlements, etc. Maybe that reasoning would apply to nomadic planes peoples but I guess they just close their eyes when talking about the sedentary Great Lakes nations.
No.1738241
>>1730594>>1730589>>1730588Didn't the guy get elected a month ago?
No.1738244
>>1738241>wow only a month; give him a chanceif milei were socialist or, hell, even demsoc like Allende, the CIA would
already be trying to overthrow him. Be glad there isn't a leftist equivalent of the CIA trying to coup milei. maybe there should be!
No.1738245
>>1738244If China was actually socialist they would have a CIAomintern
No.1738248
I wonder how MIlei is still well liked, going by the positive coverage he has on the argentina subreddit.
No.1738250
>>1738248Well Argentinian reddit users would most likely all be rich anglophiles that want to kill the poor
No.1738251
>>1738148>Would they… seize this wealth? Would they redistribute it?Sure we would - not exactly "redistribute", which got the meaning of giving equal piece to everybody, but return back to exact legitimate owners, that is homesteaders - this is how we would have done the land reform of farm lands.
If some entity "posseses" a land which is clearly undeveloped it would just stop being its owner and the land would become free for others to ocypy.
>What does it matter in a practical sense if you're born on the estate of a landlord and have to grow up renting from him, or if you're a freeholder who is conquered? Enormous areas of land would be still free for you to use - for free. If your ancestors didn't bother to build a hut but rented it from somebody then you'd have to do it yourself. Mind you that you wouldn't have to "buy" the land from anybody as gaberment selling you land is a fraud comparable to gaberments trying to charge you for sunshine. The benefit of homesteading principle is that owned land is _visibly_ owned so disputes are easy to solve. And we don't claim that it was being applied historically; for us property had indeed been mostly stolen.
Ignore this guy
>>1738156 he's babbling. If anything we are - obviously - against _forced_ integration. Chinatowns - and Italian districts - are cool if people like to live in them; white neighborhoods are also fine. And I won't insist on visiting - and meddling with - black ones if they don't wish me there.
No.1738255
>>1738251Doesn't the idea of homesteading kind of guarantee there will be no nature left in the world and everything will just be shitty smallholder farms?
No.1738260
>>1738255On the contrary - it's not physically possible for us to really _use_ all the land - not in millennia ahead anyway. They can easily draw some line on maps and claim a fraudulent "ownership" though.
There was a time when Spain and Portugal divided the world between themselves; seriously. One of them "owned" the Western hemisphere and the other the Eastern. Ridiculous and void.
No.1738261
>>1738255Capitalism itself is based on infinite growth, so "nature" is not an object to capital, its a commodity.
No.1738263
>>1738260But the concept of private land ownership still exists. Like one guy owning 100 acres.
No.1738264
>>1738260Well I agree it's unfeasible for humans to actually use all the land on earth but only because the biosphere would collapse long before then. Manifest destiny and homesteading led to the ravaging of America, just ask where all the buffalo, wolves, and so on went. The fundamental flaw with allowing anyone to 'claim' anything that isn't currently being exploited by someone else is that it will lead to a race to get the most short term gain you can from nature before somebody else does.
I much prefer a world where a tyrannical government preserves natural areas.
No.1738265
>>1738263We aren't against private ownership. We say that you can become a _legitimate_ owner by non-violent means only: production, trade or gift. Homesteading and labor contracts are legitimate for us too as they are non-violent.
No.1738267
>>1738265But doesn't basically all land have some kind of violence associated with it? Why is it permissable for some aristocrat to own land which his great-etc grandfather got it through enclosing the commons?
No.1738268
>>1738251>Sure we would - not exactly "redistribute", which got the meaning of giving equal piece to everybody, but return back to exact legitimate owners, that is homesteadersAnd how do you do that without a state? These illegitimate corporate entities won't give up their land and wealth willingly. It will have to be taken from them, which is why communists advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat. Furthermore, how do you identify the original homesteaders? If you reject "forced integration" as you claim, then surely the vast majority of land in the US would return to Indigenous people.
>Enormous areas of land would be still free for you to use - for free.This is another problem. Modern industrial society relies on the presence of a huge population of urban workers. Without these the economy would completely collapse, and industrial society would be impossible. This is a huge issue with the idealized libertarian/Jeffersonian subject of the yeoman farmer. Such a class of people simply cannot exist in any significant number under modern economic conditions. It would require a return to a pre-industrial mode of existence.
All of this is also circumventing my previous point, which is that its entirely possible for the most brutal forms of tyranny and subjugation to exist in a "libertarian" society without violating any of the rules or prescriptions. The inherent inequality of bargaining power between individuals of different classes means that people can be effectively coerced into accepting all sorts of oppressive arrangements. However because right-libertarians focus exclusively on direct coercion rather than being coerced by your conditions, these would be technically "voluntary." It takes a warped view of freedom to think that a starving man selling himself into indentured servitude for a loaf of bread is compatible with a free society. The only meaningful definition of freedom is consequentialist, a free society is that which maximizes the power of every individual over their own life.
No.1738269
>>1738265Yes but the "lines in a map" are legally actionable by the state, where if i start camping or squatting on your land, i get arrested. This happens all the time with loitering, where if you gather outside a place, sooner or later a cop will show up and tell you to go.
No.1738273
>>1738265>Homesteading and labor contracts are legitimate for us too as they are non-violent.Rousseau btfo this position 250 years ago as far as I'm concerned. Of course homesteading is violent. It requires you to protect your claim with force doesn't it? It's only "non-violent" if you assume the legitimacy of the Lockean approach to ownership, where staking your claim and working the land makes it yours. What if the rest of the people around you reject this view? In that case you're just some asshole that has enclosed a commons without the consent of the others who previously had access to it.
No.1738274
>>1738267Of course, all rights to ownership are made through conflict. Ayn rand famously gave a justification of this as against the native americans, where she said that the more civilised a people, the more of a right they have to a piece of land. Basically, might makes right.
She gave the same justification about israel.
But this is also just realistic. History is made by violent struggle. Seeking non-violence is being ahistorical.
No.1738298
>>1738273>Of course homesteading is violent.Sure it's not. _Somebody else_ would have to initiate violence to take from what is yours as a matter of de facto. And we acknowledge the right to self defense. That's kinda the whole point
No.1738304
>>1738274Well if we believe in might makes right then why is the government wrong? Seems like they successfully managed a monopoly on force. If we lived in ancap world and everything is decided by force then what's this silliness about non violence? Of course people will use violence if there's no kind of social authority and conquest is considered a legitimate form of acquisition.
This is why I don't want right libertarian 'freedom', it's just the freedom of the slaver and the bandit, whatever you can inflict on other people is legitimate as long as nobody stops you
No.1738305
>>1738298>Somebody else_ would have to initiate violence to take from what is yours as a matter of de facto.The declaration that its yours is itself arbitrary. This is what Rousseau's point was. You're just laying claim to what is effectively a commons by declaring that its yours and threatening violence against anybody who disputes it. It's simply an assertion backed by force.
No.1738313
>>1738268>And how do you do that without a state?Owners stop paying fraudulent "rent's" and taxes; it is being enforced by private court systems and security. We would probably have to organize them _before_ we denounce our subjugation to the current states btw.
If identifying the original homesteaders isn't possible we would probably leave things as they are. These are practical considerations which obviously would have to be solved _somehow_ but are just parallel to the general doctrine. Repairing the current mess is a different problem requiring a case by case approach.
>Modern industrial society relies on the presence of a huge population of urban workers. We don't really care about "economic efficiency" - in a sense that we don't have the slightest intention of enforcing it against anybody else's will. I would guess that most people would _prefer_ to be the industrial workers because it would be more profitable for them due to the efficiency of industrial production.
No.1738314
>>1738304Well its about class interests of course
Marx in capital vol. 3 speaks about how rents are an antinomy to capital's interests because they direct profits to unproductive areas. Taxes are just the rents of the state and cut into the profits of businessmen and high earners.
If the state had no cost then it wouldnt be an issue.
>This is why I don't want right libertarian 'freedom', it's just the freedom of the slaver and the bandit, whatever you can inflict on other people is legitimate as long as nobody stops youWell of course, but this is what freedom is to everybody. The principle task of the proletariat is in finding a collective liberation, which we might call democracy (rule of the people), which is more ambiguous.
No.1738315
>>1738305>The declaration that its yours is itself arbitraryNo, I have begun using it WITHOUT VIOLENCE - like objects I have physically manufactured. No one else can say that a bow I have just made is his without using force and taking it from me - only I can do this.
No.1738356
>>1738298I declare the whole world my property and if you try and live anywhere on it I will use my right to self defense.
No.1738443
>>1732056>That one dude in the cuck chair wearing fishnet stockingslel
No.1738450
>>1738265Just go watch 100-1000 minecraft multiplayers. Without state's protection, all your property will get grifted immediately
No.1738591
>>1738251>If anything we are - obviously - against _forced_ integration. Chinatowns - and Italian districts - are cool if people like to live in them; white neighborhoods are also fine. And I won't insist on visiting - and meddling with - black ones if they don't wish me there.🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
No.1738597
>>1738315this guy still hasnt explained why the native americans dont count as the original owners but the white homsteaders do in a north american context which was precisely the context that Rothbard had in mind.
No.1738864
>>1737155Dude forgot about Wallmart lol
No.1738867
>>1737159> Don't link Italian if you want a fast response you fucktard.Just use google translate retard
> This was a case of a clear homicide - these things happen in "regulated" environments too.>> I don't support [regulations], they are costly and redundant because consumers can enforce products quality perfectly well under the threat of bankrupting shady producersShifting your bile arguments?
No.1738872
>>1737191I forgot that they get dumber than this
No.1738877
>>1737236>Then in what sense is a property owner different from a state? What if a group of landlords pool their resources for collective security? How is that different from a state?MFs didn't even look up how european feudalism came to be.
And yet the fall of the roman empire was perhaps the best moment for anarco-capitalism to rise: with poor people fleeing cities due to taxation, the rich started contracting them into servitute in exchange for protection
No.1738887
>>1738313I don’t think you understand how taxes work or what taxes are. You think that taxes exist in an ether like some magical dimension where all the taxes exist waiting for a state to Will into reality and enforce it on people. Taxes are nothing but the provisioning of labor for the community as a whole. Taxes arose with the agricultural revolution which is when we start to see things like redistribution of grain and land and grain storage and accounting. All of these things, during the agricultural revolution, just “showed up” all at the same time.
No.1738919
>>1738251> Sure we would - not exactly "redistribute", which got the meaning of giving equal piece to everybody, but return back to exact legitimate owners, that is homesteaders - this is how we would have done the land reform of farm lands.You didn't even think about the world outside of the americas, did you?
No.1739018
>>1738313> Owners stop paying fraudulent "rent's" and taxes; it is being enforced by private court systems and security. We would probably have to organize them _before_ we denounce our subjugation to the current states btw.>If identifying the original homesteaders isn't possible we would probably leave things as they are.Same ideology that cries that socialism isn't possible.
We already knew lolberts where idealistic morons by a good reminder doesn't hurt
No.1739020
>>1738915Imo, we probably shouldn't too hard on the mentally ill
No.1739584
>>1738597IIRC Rothbard has written that Native Americans did own particular pieces of land they homesteaded, that is villages and farmlands; they didn't own the whole American continent which was (and still is!) largely unoccupied and free to colonize.
Show me a questionable, exact Rothbard's opinion, I am not interested in what other people (wiki editors kek) are babbling about him.
No.1739593
>>1739073You must start with the Greeks. I wouldn't ask anarcho-communists what anarchism is because they may be biased. According to Rothbard we are not like those other anarchists, duh.
Your meme is old, currently we agree that we are all anarchists and we won't accuse each other that they aren't. It didn't lead anywhere.
No.1739631
>>1739073>pic 1i know it's just a meme, but I wish there were sources for each quote.
No.1739632
>>1739593>You must start with the Greeks.False. You must start with Gobleki Tepe.
No.1741786
>>1731169absolute banger mp4. WEF schizos make some good worldbuilding
No.1743498
>>1736265money is form
no essence, marx is wrong.
money is 100% worthless.
No.1743507
>>1743498Tbf marx wrote in a time of gold money, where money was represented by an equivalece/redemption in precious metal. So its form had material content this way.
Whats interesting to note however is that marx says that the functional use of money can be replaced by paper tokens, inducing it into pure form, so he didnt negate these contradictions in his analysis.
As per the alienated essence, it still holds today, but form has simply been placed above content (as we see in the popularity of macroeconomics) where the real economy has been replaced by a "line goes up" dogma.
Money has formal value but no substantive value as you say, but this doesnt change things too much, since the secret of money is its formal properties in exchange found by adam smith.
Also since we're on the topic, marx gives a good critique of macroeconomics in capital where he says "the wealth of nations is the poverty of individuals" (parahrased).
No.1743635
>>1743507>Tbf marx wrote in a time of gold money, where money was represented by an equivalece/redemption in precious metal. So its form had material content this way.And even these days, w/ the gold standard abolished, you can still redeem your money in material commodity forms.
No.1743671
>>1738105The government before Milei wasn’t left wing.
No.1743672
>>1738265Those homesteads are states themselves.
No.1743681
>>1737154>YOUR system needs a state, not ours kek.<Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government. Where there is no property, or at least none that exceeds the value of two or three days' labour, civil government is not so necessary. <…<It is in the age of shepherds, in the second period of society, that the inequality of fortune first begins to take place, and introduces among men a degree of authority and subordination which could not possibly exist before. It thereby introduces some degree of that civil government which is indispensably necessary for its own preservation: and it seems to do this naturally, and even independent of the consideration of that necessity. The consideration of that necessity comes no doubt afterwards to contribute very much to maintain and secure that authority and subordination. The rich, in particular, are necessarily interested to support that order of things which can alone secure them in the possession of their own advantages. Men of inferior wealth combine to defend those of superior wealth in the possession of their property, in order that men of superior wealth may combine to defend them in the possession of theirs. All the inferior shepherds and herdsmen feel that the security of their own herds and flocks depends upon the security of those of the great shepherd or herdsman; that the maintenance of their lesser authority depends upon that of his greater authority, and that upon their subordination to him depends his power of keeping their inferiors in subordination to them. They constitute a sort of little nobility, who feel themselves interested to defend the property and to support the authority of their own little sovereign in order that he may be able to defend their property and to support their authority. Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. The Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chapter 1: On the Expenses of the Sovereign or Commonwealth by Adam Smith
No.1744018
>>1738315>No, I have begun using it WITHOUT VIOLENCEBut it doesn't effectively become your property until violence is employed. You're assuming it becomes "yours" once you mix your labour with it, but in practice this isn't the case.
>No one else can say that a bow I have just made is his without using force and taking it from me And you can't say it's yours without using force to keep it.
>>1738313>Owners stop paying fraudulent "rent's" and taxesThat wouldn't be enough to retake their property from them, nor would it solve the problem of actual distribution. A rent/tax strike can compel a landlord or a state to do grant concessions, but if you want to actually redistribute their property to the legitmate owners then you will have to take it from them. That will require an organized apparatus of violence.
>We don't really care about "economic efficiency"It's not an issue of efficiency. Without modern industrialized production the economy simply can't sustain the current population. A return to a Jeffersonian ideal of yeoman homesteaders would require the death of millions.
No.1744042
>>1730589>literal anarchyThis is 68 year old boomer tier understanding of the ideology.
No.1744043
>>1738313>private court systemsHow does this work? A "private court system" that isn't recognized by anybody is worthless.
A "private court system" that is widely recognized and used is de facto a state apparatus, especially if it has a large enough security force to enforce its decisions, which it would naturally have to.
And guess what buttercup, the corporations and their existing state apparatus are far more powerful than whatever pissant militia you and your petit-bourgeois buddies could muster. They were there first. The boot always wins.
>>1744018>A return to a Jeffersonian ideal of yeoman homesteaders would require the death of millions.I think the implication is that lolberts are fine with that. They and their ilk are well-known misanthropes.
No.1744080
>>1744043>A "private court system" that isn't recognized by anybody is worthless.Not to mention that if a court system can be owned privately, then it cannot carry out its core function as a neutral body of dispute resolution. Can a dispute be resolved if one of the parties owns a controlling share in the court? What if they can't agree on which private court to try their case in? Who enforces the rulings? The concept is nonsensical on so many levels.
No.1744126
>>1744080this is what rothbard said
>In his work Power and Market,[61] Rothbard stated:>The law merchant, admiralty law, and much of the common law began to be developed by privately competitive judges, who were sought out by litigants for their expertise in understanding the legal areas involved. The fairs of Champagne and the great marts of international trade in the Middle Ages enjoyed freely competitive courts, and people could patronize those that they deemed most accurate and efficient No.1744130
>>1744080
>In his work Power and Market,[61] Rothbard stated:>The law merchant, admiralty law, and much of the common law began to be developed by privately competitive judges, who were sought out by litigants for their expertise in understanding the legal areas involved. The fairs of Champagne and the great marts of international trade in the Middle Ages enjoyed freely competitive courts, and people could patronize those that they deemed most accurate and efficientI still dont understand how you could have multiple privatised courts
No.1744144
>>1744130There's a huge difference I think between seeking out an individual arbitrator and a whole system of private courts in a capitalist context. It's one thing for a pair of medieval merchants to seek out a local expert to mediate their dispute. It's entirely another in a capitalist context where modern, publicly traded corporations exist. If somebody starts a private court company selling mediation services, then this introduces conflicts of interest once it becomes possible to own the entity itself. The only comparison in a medieval example would have been bribery. I'm also willing to bet that Rothbard doesn't undertake a thorough investigation of these medieval private court systems and their actual effectiveness. Just because they existed doesn't mean they discharged their function in a fair and neutral way. Moreover this was all taking place in a context where there ultimately did exist a state power to compel parties to seek mediation, compliance with rulings, a prevent disputes from being resolved via alternative means (e.g. violence). Honestly if you want a better look at how disputes are resolved in the absence of a state to mediate and enforce decisions then look at the world of organized crime. When crime syndicates like mafia families or drug cartels are unable to work out their disputes, they don't turn to some private court system, they go to war.
No.1745256
>>1745151Yes but he was one of the prime thinkers that were used to ideologically "justify" britains turn from mercantilism to the more "free market" and more modern capitalist 1800s British system. He did say some based things thats true but hes also heavy associated with the changes and shit that produced victorian london. And thus his legacy has become tainted with it. I dont know if claiming him is a good idea…for socialists
No.1754642
>>1744126You answered nothing.
Can a dispute be resolved if one of the parties owns a controlling share in the court? What if they can't agree on which private court to try their case in? Who enforces the rulings?
No.1754647
>>1744144related
https://prospect.org/justice/2024-01-31-moral-bankruptcy/
>But bankruptcy courts are not ordinary halls of justice. Bankruptcy brings all those other halls to a grinding halt, automatically staying not only all attempts to collect on monies owed, but all litigation pending in any court of any stature. Once a plan of reorganization is approved by relevant creditors, it cannot be amended, barring proof of deliberate fraud. And so Van Deelen had been showing up to the Houston federal courthouse to try and convince Judge Jones there had been a mistake, that the bankruptcy had been filed in bad faith and ought to be halted pending an investigation, perhaps through the appointment of a bankruptcy examiner, to ensure that justice had been served.
>But that is not how Judge Jones worked.
>Instead, he questioned Van Deelen’s sanity and threatened to have him arrested. No.1754688
>>1744103I like having rightists around. It helps widdle away the pick me instinct
No.1754770
>>1754688the fuck is pick me instinct?
No.1754848
>>1730585One day I had an epiphany.
Any ancap that takes anarcho capitalism seriously, is doing it wrong.
Anarcho capitalism is the natural order, that society fails into when the state falls apart.
Once coercion is no longer viable, people are only motivated by reward.
But let’s be real, coercion doesn’t just go away. Mob rule would likely take its place.
So the important part is working out what rules the mob should rule by.
Personally, I believe it should vary by each community.
As Michael Malice says, anarchy isn’t a system of government. It’s a relationship.
It only works as well as your relationship with your neighbors.
No.1754858
Anarcho Capitalism is just fascism
No.1755148
>>1754642It already works this way in case of international trade as no court has a world jurisdiction. Business contract names the dispute resolution procedures and arbitration courts. Both parties must come to an agreement here or there is no transaction. (If you're making a small purchase as an individual you are accepting contract terms by default and your option is to choose a different vendor but standard contract terms are typically the best you could get anyway - and no gaberment is able to improve upon them)
In criminal cases the injured party chooses the court but the defendant can choose the court of appeal with the third and final instance agreed upon by the two courts. It is also very similar to current cases between people of different nationalities but it's an improvement as both parties have a say about their legal procedures.
Everybody can enforce a court order but everybody will be subject to litigation if he is in the wrong; there are no privileged policefaqs which are basically above the law.
No.1755251
>>1755148> Both parties must come to an agreement here or there is no transactionExactly
No.1755260
>>1754848The state in its most basic and fundamental form is a group of armed men enforcing laws through the fear those arms inspire. "Mob rule" is functionally just an informal and erratic state.
A stateless society is only possible under communism because only under communism mutual benefit genuinely realized and, consequently, can you have a society that doesn't require force or the fear of violence and punishment as a motivating factor. What's more, the state largely exists to protect property and uphold class relations, and it is only without property and class relations that the state becomes unnecessary.
No.1755438
>>1755148>Business contract names the dispute resolution procedures and arbitration courts.Contracts can only be enforced if there's a state apparatus to do so. What happens if somebody breaks the contract by refusing to agree to go to the designated private court? You can't compel them to show up at another court to resolve that violation.
No.1755781
>>1755260I don’t have the stomach for all the unnecessary cruelty that goes into breaking individual willpower, that it would take to abolish capitalism.
Abolishing the state is as simple as starving it of reverence.
No.1756230
>>1755438If he refuses to show up at his trial then it will proceed in absentia.
Private, competitive courts exist, private law enforcement also exists. If you are saying that the world isn't currently organised according to the ancap principles then - OK?
No.1756278
>>1755781Capitalism is a system of capital accumulation and reproduction. It isn't some earthly manifestation of the abstract concept of "individual willpower."
Also, that's a bullshit quote that apparently originates from an anti-communist screed named "Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him" and cites a secondary source in Polish.
No.1756460
>>1756230> If he refuses to show up at his trial then it will proceed in absentia.> In a private courtHoly shit you guys are dumb. I can just set up my own court and have my own friends bring their litigations here, at which point I can either just rule in their favour without even bothering to hear their opponent's case or just declare them guilty because they didn't even bother to show up at my show trial. If I'm a private court and I don't even have a state imposing me laws to evaluate my case upon I can literraly just do whatever the fuck I want.
> private law enforcement also exists.Which laws decided by whom? If you have multiple competing courts, unbound to a higher entity, it means that each can and will likely have it's own standards and can give different rulings on the same cases, at which point you need to have both parties to agree to go to the same court, and pray to god that one of the two just decides it doesn't like the ruling and either ignores it or calls in another court when whoever tries to enforce the original ruling.
> b-but it existed!And people who put piss in their own eyes also exist. The fact that it has ever existed in a certain historical context doesn't mean it's a good idea now and not even then.
Honestly the fact that you guys seem unable to realize even these basic points makes you dumber than the average brick, for the latter at least has the decency to shut up and not waste oxygen saying retarded shit
No.1759394
>>1730585Just remember that most of them are redditors and don't have to stay consistent about their beliefs - any contradictions can just be ignored.
They dwell in places where their views go unchallenged - so there is no need for them to think.
No.1759398
>>1756230>If he refuses to show up at his trial then it will proceed in absentia.And how will the ruling be enforced? What if the parties each hire different courts and try each other in absentia, producing conflicting rulings?
>private law enforcement also existsCool so the two parties can each hire their own armed enforcement squads to enforce their contradictory rulings on each other. I'm sure that will turn out fine.
>If you are saying that the world isn't currently organised according to the ancap principles then - OK?Organized crime is. What exactly would stop private actors from behaving like Mexican cartels and resorting to violence to resolve disputes?
No.1760313
My understanding browsing twitter is that young latinos love this anarcho-capitalist libertarian fantasy but its because they just view socialism and religious ideologies as old people boomer ideologies that failed them and just saying you're a capitalist is lame so they embrace this aesthetic in an attempt to not be as lame for just wanting capitalism. Is this more or less the vibe here?
No.1761048
>>1759394Where's the challenge? I haven't seen any. Do you mean some memes? For ants? Sorry, the left cannot meme. In fact, you are doing so poorly that I may have to start challenging myself to have something interesting to respond to.
No.1761068
>>1756460You have just described a primitive (fantasy - wink wink) scenario of judicial misconduct - these things happen all the time in the current system. False testimonies of the police are so widespread that they are required to film their actions and they are _still_ getting away with murder. False _self incriminating_ confessions are a thing in the current, sick, judicial system - look it up. The habit of locking up a random black person who just happens to not have any alibi to successfully "solve the case" is a centuries long tradition which is still going strong.
Our solution to the problem of judicial misconduct is existence of many _independent_ judicial organizations free to scrutinize the actions of the competing firms; statist solution is criminals catching themselves and locking themselves in prisons. You be the judge which one is truly insane.
No.1761080
>>1759398>What exactly would stop private actors from behaving like Mexican cartels and resorting to violence to resolve disputes?Lack of state. The cartels were created with the help of Mexican state - it's a known fact already - and they are still being sustained and defended by the state. Look up the history of a successful Mexican vigilante Autodefenca movement which was being crushed by _the state_. Since vigilantes were stronger than cartels and the state army was stronger than the vigilantes, the army could have just easily crushed the cartels; it really defends them instead.
Your previous questions show that you don't really read my answers; you are repeating the same claims over and over again and just ignore what I am saying.
No.1761098
>>1756278Still doesn't deny the militant atheism of that time.
>>1759394What the hell is that meme even saying? I can't even read it fully.
>>1760313This.
>>1761068>statist solution is criminals catching themselves and locking themselves in prisonsCops locking themselves up?
Or how about they just do their jobs. You know, align their incentives with crime reduction.
>>1761080I guess you can find government's hand in everything, cartels, Somali pirates, post-2011 Libya, Syria etc. but there are plenty of people who would be at each others' throats without government help. People do not want to live in a violent and chaotic world until things stabilize and a new Grand Overlord institutes a new state or something. Good luck going after Russia evading sanctions. Or will the McArmy(tm) invade Russia for confiscating western businesses and sanctions evasion? The world is a very ancap place and it's a goddamn hellhole that people want to move on from.
No.1761125
>>1761048You say "no challenge" yet haven't even responded to an Adam Smith quote
>>1743681 No.1761138
lolbert anon, what do you think about business cycles?
Are the austrians right that if you got rid of government then there would never ever be a market crash? Sounds too good to be true.
No.1761204
>>1730983>It wasn’t real capitalism thoWhat is "real capitalism" by this point? The more laissez-faire capitalism becomes, the more self-destructive it is. The NAP is a spook that's unenforceable without an authoritarian government. And everything you suggest to make the market freer either leads to the above or moves you further to the left. First you say that the workers should own guns but then you say that the workers should not unionize. But workers owning guns already makes capitalism more
democratic for lack of a better word, which means that you're not making capitalism freer, but rather you make it "fairer." Which is a big difference. It's more intellectually honest to say you want to make laissez-faire capitalism "fairer" but since absentee property leads to so many problems you might as well be a mutualist by that point.
No.1761210
>>1761204 (me)
Essentially, the more you're cornered, the more you sound like an anarcho-socdem. There are even ancaps that support the
land value tax (no fucken clue how it's going to be widely enforced).
No.1761260
>>1761209Since youre an ancap i'll just dump my questions on you
- What are your opinions on friedman's negative income tax? (I support it over UBI)
- Opinions on the homestead principle outlined by rothbard? (Where he gives praise to yugoslavian workers for taking the factory into their own hands as a natural right)
- do you agree with someone like richard spencer that libertarianism was/is a white identity movement?
- arent "recreational nukes" the worst idea ever imagined in practice?
No.1761332
>>1761260>What are your opinions on friedman's negative income tax?Friedman was a statist. (His son is not btw he is an ancap and based.) Negative income tax is better than other statist options, but still, money is collected coercively, which is bad. You will have to suffer the existence of state. And state by its very existence has a tendency to keep expanding un-controllably to all parts of a persons private life . I prefer a private fraternity society type welfare system to statist options :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynce-QYY8EQSuch private groups had more flexibility, options and sustainability when it came to welfare.
>Opinions on the homestead principle outlined by rothbard?Based
>do you agree with someone like richard spencer that libertarianism was/is a white identity movement?Nope. Libertarian ideas can be found across the world. There were many libertarian philosophers in ancient China for example
>arent "recreational nukes" the worst idea ever imagined in practice?I think it's just a meme. In an ancap society, people will decide whether it's a good idea or not. If it's not, it will become unprofitable due to lack of demand and go bust. It's beyond my prediction. It's for the society to decide.
No.1761334
>>1761332How the hell do you cope with Argentina?
No.1761346
>>1761345So you're telling me that ancap can't stop inflation. How can this be?
No.1761351
>>1761346>So you're telling me that ancap can't stop inflation. Didn't say that tho
No.1761354
>>1761353Tell me what's his plan to fight inflation
No.1761372
>>1761354Balance the budget by 2024, tax reform, freedom to use any preferable currency, removing price controls and other regulations, fiscal discipline etc.
No.1761376
>>1761372Alright come back in December and we'll see how that goes
No.1761385
>>1761372>Balance the budgetThis is impossible for any country that prints their own money, since the "debt" is the money supply. It's common propaganda used by people who hope you don't understand how money works.
No.1761387
>>1761385I mean you can spend less on government expenses than you bring in in taxation
No.1761389
>>1761385Youre right, but tbf ancaps dont want central banks printing currency, they want a free market
No.1761390
>>1761387But why? It's govvts job to spend.
Austerity cunt.
No.1761391
>>1761387Spending creates money and taxation destroys it. You can not destroy more than you create.
No.1761393
>>1761390>anarchist defending gubbmint to own the conservatardsImagine my shock.
>>1761391Correct.
No.1761398
>>1761393>Imagine my shock.We don't live in anarchism you idealist burgoid retard.
No.1761401
>>1761398>anarKKKiddi3 calls someone else an idealistNow i really am shocked
The pot calling the kettle black-flag
No.1761402
>>1761393>But why? It's govvts job to spendgubermint will get the wall soon
it should be split into trillion bits
No.1761405
>>1761402>power is bad unless it's me getting to be the overlord of my own personal business fiefdomand ancaps wonder why anarchists proper don't welcome them
No.1761406
>>1761402>gubermint will get the wall soonMeanwhile in the real world… oh you don't exist here. My mistake.
Why is thos thread even allowed to exist? It implicitly gives far to much respect to this fake reddit ideology-product.
No.1761409
>>1761405> why anarchists proper don't welcome themHard to welcome those who don't exist. May as well wonder the same why 'anarcho transhimanists'.
Made up ideology which nobody has Ever met IRL and exists online to only (in theory) furnish the personality of nerdy mobility scooter living redditor types.
No.1761415
>>1761402WE CREATIN A THOUSAND LICHTENSTEINS WITH THIS ONE 🗣🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥🔥🥶🥶🥶
No.1761416
>>1761409>the popular kids arent allowed in my special clubI dont think ancaps give a fuck tbh
No.1761418
>>1761416>incoherence Okay.
No.1761420
>>1761406>ancaps are reddit<says the anarcho-liberalNarcissism of small differences?
No.1761426
>>1761080>The cartels were created with the help of Mexican stateYou're dodging the question. Whether Mexican cartels are supported by the state is irrelevant. The point is that they don't settle their disputes in Mexican courts, there is no central authority which keeps peace between cartels or mob families. They settle them amongst themselves, and if they can't settle them peacefully they go to war. This happens precisely because there is no overarching power with a monopoly on violence to impose settlements and keep them from killing each other.
>Your previous questions show that you don't really read my answersYour answers are terrible and make no sense. Every answer you give only raises further questions which you sidestep. Again what happens when two parties contract different courts, try the other in absentia, produce conflicting rulings, and hire opposing groups to enforce them? How would the outcome be anything other than bloodshed?
No.1761427
>>1761402Imagine how easy that would be to conquer lmao.
No.1761428
>>1761420At least I exist irl, have praxis.
Go back to rutting essays about the child market for updates you speeg of the month faggot.
No.1761434
>>1761428>he thinks irl is more real than the internetGrandpa still thinks its the 20th century 🤣
No.1761450
>>1761427People would have more heavy weapons per capita. Plus, insurance companies can take on the job of defense with a well-trained army. Also, private militias will be a thing. It will be extremely hard to conquer. No one will dare tread on our precious land.
>>1761426Not the same anon, but interstate dealings are already in anarchy. Dealings with China and the US, for example. Also, between small countries. They cooperate only because it's in their mutual interest to do so. There is no central authority to enforce anything. If small states can cooperate without a central authority, so can small owners of land or voluntary groups for mutual benefit and accept each other's verdicts.
No.1761454
>>1761450You only need one private army, who can very well originate from one military insurance company, deciding to physically conquer one small territory after another, starting by weaker and poorer area, until everything is under its heel, reforming a de facto monopoly on violence and therefore recreated the state
No.1761455
>>1761450>People would have more heavy weapons per capita. Plus, insurance companies can take on the job of defense with a well-trained army. Also, private militias will be a thing.None if that would matter without any centralized coordination or economic planning to sustain a war effort. Could this mass of statelets coordinate the movement of millions of soldiers? Could they produce and distribute equipment to them on a national scale? There's a reason why Balkanization is a strategy for weakening a country. A politically disunited country is easier to conquer.
>Not the same anon, but interstate dealings are already in anarchy. Ah yes, the famously nonviolent interstate dealings.
No.1761470
>>1761434I can get punched in the face IRL. what are you gonna do here?
No.1761471
>>1761454The second pic deals with such a scenario of one company gone bad. They will be eliminated in no time.
>>1761455Each region can send their heavily armed and trained people if a rogue state declares war on Ancapistan. It will be in the self-interest of people to defend the common territory. They can sustain the war through decentralized trade networks, each competing to provide the best supplies in the least amount of time.
>Ah yes, the famously nonviolent interstate dealings.Even dealings within states are not completely non-violent. Violence will always exist. Violence tends to decrease when trade and cooperation increase due to mutual interest. People have a hard time conceiving all this due to no prior experience. It's like explaining capitalism to a person living under feudalism. They will be taken aback with disbelief.
No.1761486
>communists
>saying libertarian economics are bad
No.1761497
>>1761471>It will be in the self-interest of people to defend the common territory.It was in the interest of all Indigenous peoples of North America to fight against the European invaders, but the reality was that they had beef amongst themselves that they felt was more pressing. They very often sided with the invaders against their Indigenous neighbours.
>They can sustain the war through decentralized trade networks, each competing to provide the best supplies in the least amount of time.Lol, no industrial war has ever been fought this way. Typically increased centralization is the universal response to such conflicts because it allows for more efficient distribution of use values. It avoids redundant production, ensures standardization, and ensures that production happens even if its not profitable.
>Violence tends to decrease when trade and cooperation increase due to mutual interestThis is a neoliberal meme that's been debunked by recent happenings. Trade volumes between Russia and Europe, and between the US and China have been growing for decades. Now they're all on the brink of war. At the outset of WW1 trade relations between France and Germany were so close that 90% of the shells fired at the Germans by the French army in 1914 were made in Germany. Trade can reduce the likelihood of conflict, but this can be overcome by other factors like geopolitical competition. If ordinary trade relations are leading to one state overtaking another (as was the case with Germany in 1914 or China today), then they cease to be mutually beneficial and war becomes a rational decision. The point is that in the absence of a state there is nothing to enforce AnCap principles, and thus nothing to stop a state from re-emerging.
No.1761499
how do you believe any of this shit past the age of 14
jesus fucking christ
No.1761505
> If small states can cooperate without a central authority, so can small owners of land or voluntary groups for mutual benefit and accept each other's verdicts.
Has this idiot ever opened any history book?
No.1761510
>>1761505Anon are you implying that the Balkans isn't a model of peaceful coexistence now that they have been freed by the tyranny of Yugoslav communist statism?
No.1761516
>>1761450The bullshit in the second image describes pretty well the state of thing in feudal europe, except it never worked out to keep the smaller lords safe.
Small nobles asking for protection from one another entered dependent relationships with the larger lords until they became vassals and where functionally bound the the wism of their higher ups.
The absolute best scenario were places like poland, where the king was theoretically elected by the largest lords, but in practice it was always the same families who won the elections.
More usually you had places like italy or the HRE: split in a thousand little states permantly bickering with each other, constantly forming and breaking alliances and going to war with one another, until one of them just steemrolled everyone else and formed one of the nations we see today.
A similar process played out in china, although much futher in the past
No.1761527
>>1761516The extreme irony of course is that smaller social groupings forming confederations for mutual protection and agreeing to be bound by a social contract is literally the origins of the state. OP's pic essentially assumes a universal interconnectedness that is not guaranteed. If two such confederations form with little or no such connections between them, all you've done is created two corporate blocs which approximate states.
No.1761531
>>1761524
How did you fuck up formatting on your post that bad you weird little man
No.1761555
>>1761524
Well for starters communism isn't when GDP goes up like many leftoids would want you to believe.
Anarcho-capitalism makes no sense because the bourgeois state is itself the ideal collective capitalist, since it abstracts from the interests of particular capitals to enforce the interests of capitalism as a whole.
No.1761572
>>1761555Thats why if you read austrian theory, much of it dialectically inverts into an anticapitalist struggle similar to the french and utopian socialists
No.1761574
>>1761572Yeah big part of why I find the "anti-capitalist" label useless.
No.1761639
All of this and we haven't even touched safety regulations!
This the bullcrap porky already attempts despite the state keeping an eye on him
Recalled applesauce contaminated with lead linked to more than 200 cases: CDC
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Food/applesauce-contaminated-lead-result-cutting-corners-officials/story?id=105687575 No.1761640
>>1761639no bro u dont get it!!! consumers should just buy another brand and that fixes the problem!!!!!!!
No.1761650
>>1761640“The ideological blackmail that has been in place since the original Live Aid concerts in 1985 has insisted that ‘caring individuals’ could end famine directly, without the need for any kind of political solution or systemic reorganization. It is necessary to act straight away, we were told; politics has to be suspended in the name of ethical immediacy. Bono’s Product Red brand wanted to dispense even with the philanthropic intermediary. ‘Philanthropy is like hippy music, holding hands’, Bono proclaimed. ‘Red is more like punk rock, hip hop, this should feel like hard commerce’. The point was not to offer an alternative to capitalism - on the contrary, Product Red’s ‘punk rock’ or ‘hip hop’ character consisted in its ‘realistic’ acceptance that capitalism is the only game in town. No, the aim was only to ensure that some of the proceeds of particular transactions went to good causes. The fantasy being that western consumerism, far from being intrinsically implicated in systemic global inequalities, could itself solve them. All we have to do is buy the right products.”
― Mark Fisher, Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative?
No.1761967
>>1761497>It was in the interest of all Indigenous peoples of North America to fight against the European invaders, but the reality was that they had beef amongst themselves that they felt was more pressing. They very often sided with the invaders against their Indigenous neighbours.It was a different time with not much mutual cooperation and trade. Also, Ancapistan can have some form of mutual agreement where members and companies form a kind of mutual agreement to protect against foreign invaders. You are just taking one historical scenario that fits your particular narrative.
>Lol, no industrial war has ever been fought this way.> and ensures that production happens even if its not profitable.It will become profitable to produce and distribute weapons due to high demand during war
>This is a neoliberal meme that's been debunked by recent happenings. What no
>Trade can reduce the likelihood of conflictThats all we are saying. Violence existed throughout history and will continue to exist. All we are saying is that we are living, despite all the conflicts around the world, relative to history in one of the most peaceful times globally.
>If ordinary trade relations are leading to one state overtaking another (as was the case with Germany in 1914 or China today), then they cease to be mutually beneficial and war becomes a rational decision. States think like that. Private entities, on the other hand, see the mutual benefit and are more willing to cooperate. During Xi's visit to the US, it was the business entities that welcomed him the most with huge applause during the APEC meeting in California. Also, companies would love to continue operating in Russia if it weren't for statist pressure and restrictions. Even then, many companies still operate in Russia despite all the pressure from tyrannical state officials.
Okay anyway you statists are beyond saving. I have no more time to spend on this imageboard arguing. Got to go. If you have any more ancap/libertarian related queries fell free to check out these links :
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f4MupVrgz_YcsDXGOdTHyOBDVBEn_s_IVgqyrURvPX4/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g-BVF57hL5TdbjmTB6dvKqlwMCMaAmBG98TdWWabFP8/Bye commies
No.1762103
>>1761967Holy Autism. Thanks for those links. 456 pages damn. Any Heroes up to the challenge of debunking that? Or can we all agree ancaps will never concede and use sematics to pivot and wiggle out of any refutation of the ECP and other nonsense. The Soviets' biggest mistake was flirting with capitalism. North Korea didn't and it's still standing while the Russians are so infected with Gaidar-BS they are trying to solve some of their problems with "market methods" while the whole success of their economy lies in state-owned and planned enterprises like Rostec and Rosatom.
Here let me do a debunk. This is from one of the sheets.
←—Disproving Materialism—–<P1) if materialism is true or psychicalism is true, then everything in the universe would be purely physical or material<P2) P1 can be restated as “there is nothing which is nonmaterial/nonphysical.”<P3) An objective fact purely about the nonphysical/nonmaterial would itself be nonphysical/nonmaterial.<P4) P2 is an objective fact purely about the nonmaterial/nonphysical.<P5) P2 is nonmaterial and nonphysical.<P6) P2 doesn’t exist according to P2.<C) ergo materialism is false — QED.Debunk:
>P1 is a false premise since nonphysical nonmaterial entities cannot be interacted with in a material way.>P2 materialism only deals in entities that can be materially interacted with.>P3 nonmaterial can become material if existing material concepts are newly applied to presently nonmaterial entitites. (e.g. radioactivity in the 19th century)>P4 if a previously nonmaterial entity became interacted with, it therefore was always material, so the assumption of nonmateriality is therefore disproven.>P5 as time advanced the only nonmaterial entities that remain are those that are a priori declared and defined as nonmaterial. (Dasein, God, Soul etc)>P6 there is no contradiction in P1 to P5.>P7 materialism as defined in P2 is true. - QEDIn otherwords if God never interacted with the universe, he is not material. If he did, when he did, he became material. God is outside the universe in other words most of the time at which point he is immaterial, but if he promises to interact with it in the future, assuming he is telling the truth, that promise is material.
On to the next point.
Get a load of this garbage from one of the links of Weaponized Autism:
https://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/in-soviet-union-optimization-problem-solves-you/
<Calling the Tune for the Dance of Commodities<There is a passage in Red Plenty which is central to describing both the nightmare from which we are trying to awake, and vision we are trying to awake into. Henry has quoted it already, but it bears repeating.
<Marx had drawn a nightmare picture of what happened to human life under capitalism, when everything was produced only in order to be exchanged; when true qualities and uses dropped away, and the human power of making and doing itself became only an object to be traded. Then the makers and the things made turned alike into commodities, and the motion of society turned into a kind of zombie dance, a grim cavorting whirl in which objects and people blurred together till the objects were half alive and the people were half dead. Stock-market prices acted back upon the world as if they were independent powers, requiring factories to be opened or closed, real human beings to work or rest, hurry or dawdle; and they, having given the transfusion that made the stock prices come alive, felt their flesh go cold and impersonal on them, mere mechanisms for chunking out the man-hours. Living money and dying humans, metal as tender as skin and skin as hard as metal, taking hands, and dancing round, and round, and round, with no way ever of stopping; the quickened and the deadened, whirling on. … And what would be the alternative? The consciously arranged alternative? A dance of another nature, Emil presumed. A dance to the music of use, where every step fulfilled some real need, did some tangible good, and no matter how fast the dancers spun, they moved easily, because they moved to a human measure, intelligible to all, chosen by all.
<There is a fundamental level at which Marx’s nightmare vision is right: capitalism, the market system, whatever you want to call it, is a product of humanity, but each and every one of us confronts it as an autonomous and deeply alien force. Its ends, to the limited and debatable extent that it can even be understood as having them, are simply inhuman. The ideology of the market tell us that we face not something inhuman but superhuman, tells us to embrace our inner zombie cyborg and loose ourselves in the dance. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry or running screaming.
<But, and this is I think something Marx did not sufficiently appreciate, human beings confront all the structures which emerge from our massed interactions in this way. A bureaucracy, or even a thoroughly democratic polity of which one is a citizen, can feel, can be, just as much of a cold monster as the market. We have no choice but to live among these alien powers which we create, and to try to direct them to human ends. It is beyond us, it is even beyond all of us, to find “a human measure, intelligible to all, chosen by all”, which says how everyone should go. What we can do is try to find the specific ways in which these powers we have conjured up are hurting us, and use them to check each other, or deflect them into better paths. Sometimes this will mean more use of market mechanisms, sometimes it will mean removing some goods and services from market allocation, either through public provision7 or through other institutional arrangements8. Sometimes it will mean expanding the scope of democratic decision-making (for instance, into the insides of firms), and sometimes it will mean narrowing its scope (for instance, not allowing the demos to censor speech it finds objectionable). Sometimes it will mean leaving some tasks to experts, deferring to the internal norms of their professions, and sometimes it will mean recognizing claims of expertise to be mere assertions of authority, to be resisted or countered.In other words. WORDS. Nothing more. Meaningless words at the end to bake into one's mind the false pseudo-scholastic nonsense that "Socialism is impossible because of a made up problem".
A good metadebunk of the ancap "debunk" of Cockshott.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5zNyRu_9Is>>1761143This anon is right. Ancaps coping and trying to discredit the USSR are a particular breed of evil that Stalin didn't destroy enough of. Idiots like Gaidar thought the BAM was worthless but now the Russians are happy they have it and are expanding it even more. The same could be said about the nuclear icebreaker fleet. And look who is catching up to whom. (USA kek trying to build nuclear icebreakers when westinghouse went bankrupt). Fake stats about how OH the soviets produced combines but they had to import grain harhar. Yeah retard they didn't tell you in ancap school that most of the soviet grain was grown for farm feed not human consumption. The more ancap trash I read, the more tempted I am to honestly move to North Korea just to prove ancaps wrong. I just don't like the overboard anti-americanism of North Korea but I hate american anti-communism more. I really want to move to North Korea and help them in farming/industry just to piss off ancaps.
https://www.youngpioneertours.com/can-you-move-to-north-korea/<And lastly there are those involved in business within North Korea. Most of these people tend to be Chinese, but there are others, even Americans. I have personally met a Korean-American pig farmer in Rason and there were an estimated 200 Americans in North Korea just before the US government ban.Also kek
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/aug/21/dresnok-sons-our-father-told-us-to-serve-kim-jong-un-videoIn order to defeat ancapism we must defeat the US empire and create a new US empire in our image where ancapism no longer has a broad think tank and intellectual support. We will need our own think tanks that promote the LTV and central planning.
Or at least have Milei's stupidity crash and burn Argentina but ancaps will wiggle out of that too.
No.1762106
>>1762103>materialismI am a materialist athiest so ehh yea I dont agree with everything in that document. Thats for religious ancaps.
>North Korea didn't and it's still standing Rason and other special economic zones says hello
No.1762107
>>1761967>It was a different timeLol
Love this handwaving nonsense . Peak pseud boomerism.
No.1762112
>>1762106And the Soviets had Liberman reforms (and other capitalist flirtations) which did more damage than Rason or whatever experiments the Chinese did ever could.
We should both open a business in North Korea and see who does a better job.
<We must agree what "better job" meansI put forward the following:
It fulfills its demand objectives
>Whoever does so fastest without cutting corners is the winner and gets the ancap prize of best manager. No.1762115
>>1761426I didn't advocate for a system where everybody can sentence everybody over everything in absentia - we were talking specifically about business contracts where both parties have already agreed to solve their disputes at a specific court.
I will likely ignore other possible strawmen like organising a trial without even informing the other side about it, etc etc
No.1762119
>>1762103simpler debunk:
p5 false, information is not non-material and non-physical.
No.1762123
>>1761469I have already told you that the system you are describing already exists in case of international (or inter-state - heck, even different counties have different laws) relations.
Insisting that real, observable things cannot happen (or require divine intervention to happen) must make you a special case in your facility.
No.1762125
>>1762112>We should both open a business in North Korea and see who does a better jobSounds based ngl
>whatever experiments the Chinese did ever couldChinese are full blown Keynesian capitalists now. I wish they went one step further and adopt Austrian economics. One of their reform advisors was an Austrian economist.
No.1762263
>>1762115> I didn't advocate for a system where everybody can sentence everybody over everything in absentia - we were talking specifically about business contracts where both parties have already agreed to solve their disputes at a specific court.No we aren't. You're retroactively adding this caveat because you have no defense to your nonsense.
Mind also: there is no defense if one of the parties just decides to break the contract and goes to a very biased court who rules in their favour.
The issue here is that rulings, punishments or any form of conflict resolution, require consent, which any party can decide to withdraw unilaterally at any moment.
I'm honestly impressed to see that you guys are too dense to even understand this basic fact
No.1762265
>>1762123The famously peaceful international relations, all of whom relying on entities with a geographicaly limited monopoly of violence where unilateral sanctions, evasions and ignoring international rulings is the order of the day.
I too eould like to deal with it while trying to get my car insurance to pay
No.1762299
>>1762292>Keynes was a socialist We know
https://mises.org/wire/keynes-called-himself-socialist-he-was-right>>1762274>The Chinese economic system is very similar to the Soviet New Economic Policy. You would regard it as vilest communism if you knew the intricacies of how it worked beyond "one neolib passed some reforms on it."Disagree on that
No.1762315
The fuck is it with rightoids and constantly trying to proselytize in leftist spaces?
We already know what your deal is, we do not lack information. We just think you’re wrong and irritating. Go away.
No.1762332
>>1762299> https://mises.org/wire/keynes-called-himself-socialist-he-was-right> The membership of Keynes’s 1917 Club reads like a who’s who of twentieth-century British socialists: G.D.H. Cole, Hugh Dalton, J.A. Hobson, Ramsay MacDonald, Oswald Mosley, John Strachey, H.G. Wells, and Leonard Woolf.Garbage in garbage out
No.1762337
>>1762334I try to be even-handed, but every right-winger that comes on here screaming "I AM THE SPECIAL DEBATE BOY!!!!! DEBATE ME" always ends up making the dumbest arguments I've seen in my life.
Like jesus christ, our side has some dumbfucks, but the right? They have some absolute prize fuckwits
No.1762339
>>1762337The right has been intellectually sterile since Evola died
No.1762340
>>1762339I mean, Evola wasn't exactly a great thinker. If your philosophy can be summarized as "lol vibes bro," then your philosophy sucks
No.1762341
>>1762337Same to be honest, in their minds they have already won the debate by virtue of their reductionalist worldview. To be honest, it's not our duty to educate them. It's not like they'd do anything irl anyways, just produce terminally online drivel.
No.1762346
> Keynes had nothing but contempt for Marx but we can now compare the maturity and accuracy of Marx’s views of developments in Russia with the superficiality of Keynes’ judgements.
> For Keynes the Russian revolution was not a stage in the development of capitalism, but the emergence of a new world religion; not based on changes in the real world but engendered in the minds of the leaders, Lenin and his associates. Keynes had something in common with the Russian leaders; he shared their belief that progress comes from the “intellectual minority“. Here are two typical passages:
< Like other new religions, Leninism derives its power not from the multitude but from a small minority of enthusiastic converts, whose zeal and intolerance make each one the equal in strength of a hundred indifferentists.
> But quite apart from other factors, it was the indifferent multitude—indifferent, that is, to Socialism—who, as the Socialist Party of Great Britain said at the time, made nonsense of the utopian dreams of introducing Socialism in Russia in 1917.
> The second quotation is an attack on Marx’s Capital chiefly revealing for what it tells us about the smug intellectual superiority of Keynes:
< How can I accept a doctrine which sets up as its bible, above and beyond criticism, an obsolete text-book which I know to be not only scientifically erroneous but without interest or application for the modern world? How can I adopt a creed which, preferring the mud to the fish, exalts the boorish proletariat above bourgeois and the intelligentsia who, whatever their faults, are the quality in life and surely carry the seeds of all human advancement? Even if we need a religion, how can we find it in the turbid rubbish of the red bookshop? It is hard for an educated, decent, intelligent son of Western Europe to find his ideals here, unless he has first suffered some strange and horrid process of conversion which has changed all his values.https://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/1967/keynesrussia.htm No.1762358
>>1762357So in a nuthshell, the economic and political worlds really do play into each other.
No.1762400
>>1762115>we were talking specifically about business contracts where both parties have already agreed to solve their disputes at a specific courtYou're going in circles. What's stopping one party from breaking the dispute resolution clause? What happens if they do and refuse to go to court? You're essentially arguing that having a contract will prevent people from breaking the contract. It's nonsense.
No.1762406
>>1762360i can't get over the fact that there are people who look at this image and unironically think "yeah, this sounds good!"
No.1762407
>>1762357That's giving them too much credit. Their fantasy world of small businesses without a state could never exist in the first place.
No.1762410
>>1762407They should move to Mexico, I hear they have competing local pharmaceutical companies unregulated by the government there.
No.1762411
>>1762407I know Graeber is regarded as something of a meme here for being an anarchist but I want to fwap ancaps in the face wth a copy of Debt
No.1762416
>>1762125That's my boy. I knew I could get along with an ancap even though we are on opposite ends of the same retardation spectrum. But I will disagree with the Chinese being Keynesian Caps, they have their own unique system where there are both Central Plans and Free Markets, You can't own land, but the lease terms give you defacto ownership claims and yet, China has stronger eminent domain laws. And the CPC is still in control. The marked difference between China and NEP is that China does not have a monopoly on foreign trade (import/export) whereas in the NEP the USSR did. I guess you can call them Georgist Communists.
https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/125974740.pdf https://www.jtl.columbia.edu/bulletin-blog/a-rural-urban-crossroads-in-chinese-law-qiao-shitong-on-the-development-and-future-of-chinese-eminent-domainhttps://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2017/03/21/good-news-for-chinese-homeowners-premier-li-offers-some-clarity-on-land-leases/ >>1762346That last quote explains Infrared's hatred of Angloids. Maupin was angry at Orwell's animal farm for something similar.
>>1762410Or Libya, see
>>1761664But me and my new ancap friend are thinking of opening businesses in North Korea. Any of you anons wanna be good simps and pay for our 1 way tickets? Before I have to sell my business and fund the project with my own hard earned money.
No.1762460
>>1762416sell pot to north koreans and name it Taepodank
No.1762461
>>1762460they already have ganja in the DPRK and sell it in the markets
No.1762467
>>1762461True but apparently their isolation from Western markets and their selectively bred high-potency strains means it has a low THC content, basically the kind of shit boomers smoked at Woodstock. Westoid dope would likely blow their minds and be very popular, like introducing whisky to people who have only ever drank beer.
No.1762508
>>1762467>>1762467>low THC contentis best content. I trust Kim knows the purpose of western selectively bred high-potency strains.
No.1784684
Still in time for a bump
No.1784706
>>1762360I love the ancap logic of "it isn't a government because you have to pay for it and you have the "choice" between Coke Brand Law Enforcement and Pepsi Brand Law Enforcement"
No.1784709
>>1784706No it's because I'm not forced to pay for it through taxes. Besides, you guys will never agree to discuss anarcho-capitalism in good faith
>>1761664Funny. But we want the whole world to be ancap so russia, china and india would also be ancap
>>1762357With modern technology it becomes much harder to create a state when nobody wants it. Same reason why its hard for religion to spread in modern world. The moment someone is trying to establish a state, we have a million ways to counteract the state formation
No.1784749
Milei has only been in power for about 3 months now, eventually TRVE ANARCHVS-CAPITALISMVS will be implemented and the poverty rate will reverse to 0% and the GDP will rise to 1 TRILLION dollars and the petrodollar will become the unquestioned world currency and the Argentine currency will DEFLATE once Milei converts the national currency entirely to the blockchain and abolishes the public sector. Just give it time.
No.1784767
>>1784709>Besides, you guys will never agree to discuss anarcho-capitalism in good faithWhat's there to discuss because fundlementally you people want the whole world to work like the US healthcare system with even less safety nets.
No.1784768
>>1734103I'm from Brazil, tell me where so I can btfo 'em
Or is it only the (self-proclaimed) neo-feudalist Paulo Kogos here?
No.1784801
>>1762271Kill ancaps. Behead ancaps. Roundhouse kick an ancap into the concrete. Slam dunk an ancap private-property toddler into the trashcan. Crucify filthy ancaps. Defecate in an ancap's food. Launch ancapss into the sun. Stir fry ancaps in a wok. Toss ancaps into active volcanoes. Urinate into an ancap's gas tank. Judo throw ancaps into a wood chipper. Twist ancaps's heads off. Report ancaps to the IRS. Karate chop ancapss in half. Curb stomp pregnant ancap privatized breeders. Trap ancaps in quicksand. Crush ancaps in the trash compactor. Liquefy ancaps in a vat of acid. Eat ancaps. Dissect ancaps. Exterminate ancaps in the gas chamber. Stomp ancaps's skulls with steel toed boots. Cremate ancaps in the oven. Lobotomize ancaps. Mandatory abortions for ancaps. Grind ancaps's privatized pepsi-cola sweetener fetuses in the garbage disposal. Drown ancaps in fried chicken grease. Vaporize ancaps with a ray gun. Kick old ancaps down the stairs (they don't exist). Feed ancaps to alligators. Slice ancaps with a katana.
No.1784899
>>1784767Why don't you make a niche for yourself in said system. You know, when life gives you lemons make lemonde, instead of bitching about how unfair the lemons are. Become a doctor or health insurance agent and juice the system.
>>1784749No not really. Basically the worthless members of society will have to find real jobs and be productive for once and not rely on government fake fiat to consume real commodities. You may be laughing, but if Milei does everything right, it will become the Galt Gulch IRL. All the smart and entrepreneurial people will move to Argentina and the risk-averse people will serve them as the working class. Which is how society is supposed to run. I would love to become your landlord, until you accumulate enough gold-backed money (or bitcoin) to buy a house for yourself.
>>1784801>Report ancaps to the IRSPls don't. Anything but that please. I hate taxes.
No.1784918
>>1784899>this was sincerely written by an actual human adultYour brain is a waste of skull
No.1784919
>>1784899>Become a doctor or health insurance agent and juice the systemI literally am profiting from the current system. You're the one whining about the governmrnt 24/7. I have literal maids and eat fine dining everyday. Work harder and stop blaming Biden for being a useless faggot who worships McDonalds
No.1784925
>>1784899>Basically the worthless members of society will have to find real jobs and be productive for once and not rely on government fake fiat to consume real commoditiesI think that really strikes at the heart of why I dislike anarcho-capitalism philosophically. It sees productivity as an end unto itself, which I fundamentally disagree with. I don't want to spend my whole life working so that everyone else can also spend their whole lives working.
No.1784926
>>1762115Private “courts” are useless and unenforceable. Your fantasy system creates warlords hoarding resources.
No.1784927
>>1784919And your uncle works at Nintendo too?
I highly doubt that you are rich.
No.1784930
>>1784899galts gulch is the sound your mom made on my dick last night
No.1784933
Bulshit jobs from david grabber
https://www.rentabasicauniversal.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Bullshit-Jobs_-A-Theory-David-Graeber.pdfmaybe i should create a thread about david graber idk it just cumed to my mind
No.1784941
>>1784933Don't. He was a nasty, ugly liberal. I will criticize him in the thread if you make it.
No.1784942
>>1761450You are a really good argument for Stalinism.
No.1784946
>>1784941criticism is good, discussion is nice, i just don't know if there is anything interesting to talk about him, i did not actually readed much of his books
No.1784950
>>1784941He was also a leftist tho
No.1784961
>>1784950Wrong. He was a liberal.
No.1784966
>>1784961He was also a leftist tho
No.1784979
>>1784918>>1784919>>1784925>>1784930>>1784951Alright guys, i confess. Im not actually an ancap. I just get the most giggles when I pretend to be the retards I argue with on 4chan. I have spent 11 years arguing with ancaps and pretty much can impersonate them to the t.
>Also, i am not the previous ancap and gadsden anons. Im a tunisian nationalist retard who needs to take a breath of fresh air on leftypol before I go back to 4chan. Although, who knows if I am a tunisian nationalist or not. No.1784983
>>1784979Ancaps believe everyone will be so rich they'll all have a tank and the state will either away.
No.1784987
>>1784979>Im not actually an ancapyeah i could tell, you're posting in other threads with the ancap flag
step up your game
No.1784989
>>178497910/10 bait but it's actually sad that it is believable
No.1784991
>>1784979Good job, you really did have me fooled!
No.1784994
>>1784987Please don't reveal the game, I am having too much fun
>>1784989>>1784991Sadly a lot of people are heartless, but some of my personal grievances with communism kinda leeched in. I find communism to be too hard to implement, and that kinda saddens me. Its like we are stuck in a death spiral of back to the mothership.
No.1785010
>>1784709>Besides, you guys will never agree to discuss anarcho-capitalism in good faithBecause we know that it's a contradiction that could never exist. It would be like trying to argue with flat earthers in good faith.
No.1785013
>>1784994maybe youre just pretending its a game to excuse your HORRIBLE TAKES!
im having fun practicing fucking around the side of a bad take so im cool with it No.1785014
>>1784994Nationalism is fine if it's national struggle against colonialism and imperialism. Communist revolutions depend on specific factors to align so yeah it's tough, but it's not like communists are (or rather, not like they should be) trying to force a revolution where there's none to be harvested
No.1785031
>>1785014>Nationalism is fine if it's national struggle against colonialism and imperialism.It's not fine, it's just [conditionally] tolerable in the short term. Look at the KMT as a case study of this.
No.1785034
>>1784899Oh man your ideology really is throwing the poor into the meat grander and blaming them for not resisting hard enough, and then gentrifying literally everything. Deeply unserious uyghas
No.1785109
>>1785034He's emulating petite bourgeois manchildren
No.1785188
>>1762274>The Chinese economic system is very similar to the Soviet New Economic Policy.It is not. Not even close. NEP was mostly about allowing peasants to sell the grain instead of directly redistributing it. Even under NEP soviets never had private banks, foreign corporations exploiting their workers, ban on independent unions etc.
No.1785195
>>1785188>private banks,Banking in Communist China is almost entirely SOE
>foreign corporations exploiting their workersForeign capital does not exploit the proletariat in Communist China. The proletariat exploits foreign capital to develop their productive forces.
>ban on independent unions etc.Trade unions must be affiliated with the Communist Party in Communist society to ensure they are beholden to the interests of the People.
No.1785197
>>1785195>Foreign capital does not exploit the proletariat in Communist China. The proletariat exploits foreign capital to develop their productive forces.You're either trolling or you don't know what exploitation is.
No.1785198
>>1785195>Banking in Communist China is almost entirely SOE LOL
>Foreign capital does not exploit the proletariat in Communist China.Damn, i already used lol in all caps, how can i express lol even harder?
>The proletariat exploits foreign capital to develop their productive forces.Foreign capital makes immense profits, meaning there is extraction of surplus value, meaning it's literally exploitation.
>Trade unions must be affiliated with the Communist Party in Communist society to ensure they are beholden to the interests of the People.Literally Trotsky position btw. Independent unions are basis of socialist society. That's what "worker control" means.
I swear, even ancaps are easier to take seriously than deng beetles.
No.1785210
>>1785197>You're either trolling or you don't know what exploitation is.Chinese workers exploit foreign capital because the Chinese proletariat ultimately retains the value and innovation foreign capital brings.
>>1785198>LOLThe banking industry is almost entirely SOE (~99%). This is fact. You have no refutation, so you must type "LOL" like a moron.
>Damn, i already used lol in all caps, how can i express lol even harder?Use emojis.
>Foreign capital makes immense profits, meaning there is extraction of surplus value, meaning it's literally exploitation. Wrong. The Chinese People extract surplus-value from foreign capital through the mode of production of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. In Communist China, the workers, through state policies and control, direct the flow of capital in such a way that it benefits them, rather than the capitalists. In capitalist society, the value accumulates to the capitalists and the People become poor, while in Communist society, the value diffuses to the People and the People become rich.
>Literally Trotsky position btw. So Communist China's reality is Trotsky's position? You are wrong.
>Independent unions are basis of socialist society. That's what "worker control" means.You are wrong on all counts. The mere existence of independent unions is not the basis of socialist society. The defining condition of socialism is the proletariat being the ruling class, not having shitty, undeveloped, unorganized, reactionary bourgeois trade unions.
No.1785214
>>1785210>Chinese workers exploit foreign capital because the Chinese proletariat ultimately retains the value and innovation foreign capital brings.>Wrong. The Chinese People extract surplus-value from foreign capital through the mode of production of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. In Communist China, the workers, through state policies and control, direct the flow of capital in such a way that it benefits them, rather than the capitalists. In capitalist society, the value accumulates to the capitalists and the People become poor, while in Communist society, the value diffuses to the People and the People become rich.That's some incredible mental gymnastics.
No.1785215
>>1785207
>The banking industry is almost entirely SOE (~99%). This is fact. You have no refutation, so you must type "LOL" like a moron.
And it doesn't change the fact that they are private banks. Porky government owning shares of the banks changes very little.
>Wrong. The Chinese People extract surplus-value from foreign capital through the mode of production of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.
That is retarded. And asinine. And retarded. Why would foreign corpos move their production to Capitalist China if it wasn't for higher profits? Out of goodness of their hearts? No, they extract surplus value. Cope and seethe dengoid.
>So Communist China's reality is Trotsky's position? You are wrong.
Wrong exactly where? Subordinating unions to state was an idea Trotsky advocated for. That is a fact, not an opinon.
>You are wrong on all counts. The mere existence of independent unions is not the basis of socialist society.
No, but is a necessary part of it. Read Stalin "Concerning Questions of Leninism
"
<Of course, this must not be understood in the sense that the Party can or should take the place of the trade unions, the Soviets, and the other mass organisations. The Party exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, it exercises it not directly, but with the help of the trade unions, and through the Soviets and their ramifications. Without these “transmission belts,” it would be impossible for the dictatorship to be at all firm.
Meaning that witout unions, soviets and so on, proletariat cannot excercise it's dictatorship. Dictatorship of the party is not the same as dictatorship of the proletariat. Put that in your fucking scroll, beetle.
No.1785216
>>1785215>Why would foreign corpos move their production to Capitalist China if it wasn't for higher profitsNTA, but most foreign companies in China are forced to domestically assimilate to the party. For example, KFC China is a completely seperate entity run by PRC citizens. It's just that a 6℅ licensing fee is worth capitulating for the biggest commercial market on the planet. So the Chinese as a whole keeps the lions share of surplus value while also having a steady cashflow of foreign investment.
No.1785222
>>1785216Which means the exploitation is big enough for both local and foreign porkies to share and still entice the foreign ones to abandon their factories in western countries. All on the backs of chinese people, and when they try to complain or form union to protect their rights, they get brutally supressed by the state.
No.1785232
>>1785215>And it doesn't change the fact that they are private banks. Porky government owning shares of the banks changes very little. Inoperable.
>That is retarded. And asinine. And retarded. Why would foreign corpos move their production to Capitalist China if it wasn't for higher profits? Out of goodness of their hearts? No, they extract surplus value. Cope and seethe dengoid.Foreign capital is motivated by pragmatic considerations that transcend simple profit calculations. They seek efficiency, scalability, development, and, above all, integration within the burgeoning economic superpower that is Communist China.
>Wrong exactly where? Subordinating unions to state was an idea Trotsky advocated for. That is a fact, not an opinon.You are wrong because this does not matter. Drinking water to live is probably an idea that Trotsky would advocate for.
>No, but is a necessary part of it. Read Stalin "Concerning Questions of LeninismYou contradict yourself glaringly. You said this:
<Independent unions are basis of socialist society. That's what "worker control" means.>Meaning that witout unions, soviets and so on, proletariat cannot excercise it's dictatorship. Dictatorship of the party is not the same as dictatorship of the proletariat. Put that in your fucking scroll, beetle.Communist China has unions. Communist China has soviets. Communist China is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Your house of cards falls. You fail to understand the meaning of what you cite because you twist it crudely to serve your liberalism.
>>1785222>Which means the exploitation is big enough for both local and foreign porkies to share and still entice the foreign ones to abandon their factories in western countries.There is no exploitation of the proletariat in Communist China. Surplus value is not a one-sided extraction in Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, as it is under capitalist production, but a shared resource for societal advancement, with the Socialist State playing a redistributive role. The proletariat exploits the bourgeoisie in Communist China. It is the Socialist State's function to wrest the means of production from the capitalists who reside in the West, centralizing the forces of production under the control of the proletariat.
No.1785240
>>1785232>InoperableTranslation: "i don't know what private property or capitalism is"
>Foreign capital is motivated by pragmatic considerations that transcend simple profit calculations.Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
>Communist China has unions. Communist China has soviets.No it doesn't. It has state controlled unions. Just like Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy had. They are supressing the workers for the sake of porky's profits.
Dengoids are just turd positionists.
>You fail to understand the meaning of what you citeSo much projection
>There is no exploitation of the proletariat in Communist China. Surplus value is not a one-sided extraction in Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, as it is under capitalist production, but a shared resource for societal advancement, with the Socialist State playing a redistributive role. The proletariat exploits the bourgeoisie in Communist China. It is the Socialist State's function to wrest the means of production from the capitalists who reside in the West, centralizing the forces of production under the control of the proletariat.Meaningless drivel.
No.1785243
>>1785215He has a point though, a lot of the banks in china are majority state owned(by the government or other state owned enterprises). The government having majority ownership of a bank entity makes it state owned….instead of private.
you can say it functions kinda like a private company…..but thats different from ownership
No.1785253
>>1785241
Yes, the company is still private. The opposite of private is not "state owned", it's "socialized". You are literally repeating "socialism is when government does stuff" meme, but at face value.
The ownership of the bank changes nothing because they still operate like private banks (because they ARE private banks). They are using fanince capital to extract rent from people. USSR had nothing even close to this.
No.1785255
>>1785243Can't you idiots just stick with one post? Or at least think for a minute before posting, instead of deleting it after?
No.1785264
>>1785240>They are supressing the workers for the sake of porky's profitsthey don't tho
No.1785267
>>1785264Yeah, all those striking workers brutally supressed by chinese pigs must have been agents of nato or something.
No.1785632
Did my bump actually work?
What the fuck?
What is wrong with you guys
No.1808224
For me it's how they're always working at Walmart or somewhere else demeaning and then advocating for slavery like they wouldn't be the first ones tilling Rothbard's fields.
No.1808501
I can't fathom how people still fall for ancap fairy tales
>abolish the state let the invisible hand take care of everything
>there is no army because nobody is paying taxes
>a neighbouring country's bourgeoisie invades executes all cretinous mongrels who essentially made their vehicle of privilege vulnerable in the first place and subjugates the toilers
>the end
No.1808504
>>1808501it appeals to certain type of people because it has an internal logic. its the same reason why engineers often become religious fundamentalists, islam or christian.
No.1808773
>>1808501Anon, ancaps don't want to abolish the state, they want to privatize the state.
No.1808774
>>1730587an ideology also needs concrete politics to come from
No.1808813
>>1808773a bourgeois state is already private? or do u think that a toiler can affect any policies enacted in such a state lol? ancaps seek to abolish the state and let the market take care of everything
inb4 yes they can they can cast their vote
No.1808941
>>1761450>first piclmao yeah because if theres one selling point everyone will love, its replacing all government with insurance policies
No.1808952
>Complete bankruptcy
What's wrong with this? They are destroying the state, that's what anarchists do.
No.1808960
>>1730585It sounds like rebranded fascism tbh.
Ancapism rarely if ever gets implemented "properly" because it pretends you don't need to enforce capitalism. So it ends up being "accidental fascism" every time.
Unique IPs: 189