Daily reminder that replacing the state with corporations and the police with their private security isn't anarchism

No joke what exactly IS anarcho feminism? Does it have prescriptions for society?

Sounds like sengoku period tbqh

I don't want to be ruled by a bunch inbred control freaks. Democratic republics are the best form of government.

>gender is a social construct and must therefore be abolished
>state is a social construct
also something about power structures

How many anarcho-____ are there? This is satire right? I mean people don't unironically believe these right?

It's just the idea that sexist oppression mostly exists because of institutionalized patriarchy, and things would be better for women if there were no government.

>developing a calender

>people will magically agree to the NAP
Capitalism is inherently exploitative, so you've already got a contradiction in your fantasy.

meme time

>NAP

And human nature of self interest will prevent anyone from violating the NAP like they haven't in all years of history....

why an abrams?

It isn't forced. You can refuse to participate in the commune if you want to.

You aren't allowed to take your stuff with you before hand though.
Also the anarchists in Spain forced people into communes and drafted the unwilling.

>You aren't allowed to take your stuff with you before hand though.
Sure you are. Ancoms believe in personal property.
>Also the anarchists in Spain forced people into communes and drafted the unwilling.
People are hypocritical and willing to sacrifice ideals during wars, doesn't mean what they did actually reflected the ideology they believed. Also, much of the negative things said about Anarchist Catalonia was Nationalist propaganda and should be doubted since they're the ones who won the war.

>not being anarcho-anarchist

I've never read what a coherent explanation for what anarchy is supposed to be beyond "fuck da state we don't need it".

You mean like all the priests they murdered because "Catholicism is oppression, no we don't care if people believe it, death to any clergy"

>authority and hierarchy are unnecessary and just lead to the few oppressing the many
The individual priests shouldn't have been murdered, but if you're trying to bring down the state and all institutions that support it, then the Catholic Church would definitely be one of the most important ones out there. It's not like they targeted everyone with religious beliefs.

>I would obviously be a part of the new Monarchic upper class because I AM FUCKING SUPERIOR

You don't actually believe this, do you?

>It's not like they targeted everyone with religious beliefs.
And it's not like the Nazis targeted all Jews, just the ones in the territory they held onto.
Face it: The cheering crowds that accompanied Franco's victory should be proof positive enough that anarchists can't rally the support of people who they claim to represent.

>authority and hierarchy are unnecessary
See this doesn't qualify as a "coherent" as any five year old can explain why a degree of authority and hierarchy is necessary.

>And it's not like the Nazis targeted all Jews, just the ones in the territory they held onto.
False equivalence. The anarchists sought to destroy the state and the Catholic Church is a pretty big accomplice of it. They didn't murder people who believe in Christianity or who were born as Catholics.
>Face it: The cheering crowds that accompanied Franco's victory should be proof positive enough that anarchists can't rally the support of people who they claim to represent.
Except the Nationalists started as a military coup against the democratic Republican government, and the very reason the Republicans managed to continue fighting at all is because the unions went on a general strike and demanded to be armed so they could fight against the Nationalists. Franco then proceeding to establish a dictatorship also kinda ruins the idea that he was the people's choice.
>See this doesn't qualify as a "coherent" as any five year old can explain why a degree of authority and hierarchy is necessary.
That doesn't qualify as an argument either. Also, ask any 5 year old if he thinks he should ordered what to do and he'll say no.

Reminder no one cares

anarcho-monarchism.com/
>Anarcho-monarchism is an anti-state / libertarian blog, arguing the merits for virtuous order, monarchy, Christianity, and Western civilization.

>The anarchists sought to destroy the state and the Catholic Church is a pretty big accomplice of it.

The Nazis sought to destroy international financial corruption and Jewish bankers were a pretty big accomplices of it.

That's true. Unfortunately most Jews aren't bankers and the rest didn't choose to be Jews. While the priests did choose to be priests and directly support an accomplice of the state, although I already said they shouldn't have been murdered.

And yet, they did so, and to this day, anarchists suppress religious leaders

Anarchists are against authority and hierarchy, which organized religions love. It's not surprising when anarchists fight people who advocate for it. It has nothing to with religion, but organized religion that tries to control people. Leo Tolstoy was a Christian and he's a very respected anarchist writer.

Will autism bux and the truNEET™ lifestyle still be possible under anarchism?

No. You will be expected to contribute to the commune/union/tribe and if you don't people won't associate with you and refuse to give you anything. Don't worry, you'll enjoy being part of a community and not wage slaving.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Fortunately not but I'm sure some Anarcho-Memeism will make it possible.

You won't have a choice, comrade. If you don't like people you can go and build a cabin somewhere and live on hunting and subsistence farming.

But if they refuse to give you anything, then you're left with the fact that you have to work to eat, which leftists have helpfully informed me is slavery

I'd rather live in a society where I can sell my valuable labor to the highest bidder. And so would they.

Neither anarcho-capitalists nor anarcho-collectivists are able to justify their political beliefs without appealing to their own incoherent ethical systems.

>But if they refuse to give you anything, then you're left with the fact that you have to work to eat, which leftists have helpfully informed me is slavery
No, wage work is slavery, Everyone has to work to eat, that's a fact of nature.
>I'd rather live in a society where I can sell my valuable labor to the highest bidder. And so would they.
>I'd rather live in a society where I'm a slave to my boss' will and desires and he takes most of the profit I make for myself

But I thought anarchism is voluntary and anti authoritarian.

Why did you lie to me?

>I'd rather live in a society where I'm a slave to my boss' will and desires and he takes most of the profit I make for myself
I can work solo in my field (law) and make far less than working for a big firm.
Also, it's my choice to make. Why, if you're going to force the unwilling to structure their society the way you demand, you've just become the most authoritarian government in existence

They lie to get working class support.

No idea; anarcho-capitalism; anarcho-primitivism; no idea; anarcho-communism; mutualism; no idea; anarcho-transhumanism?; no idea; anarcho-gayism; anarcho-feminism; anarcho-pacificism.

Did I do good? Seriously what the fuck are the blues and the grey?

It is voluntary and anti-authoritarianism. That's precisely why no one has to give you shit for free.
>I can work solo in my field (law) and make far less than working for a big firm.
That's the cost of not being a wage-slave in a capitalist society.
>Also, it's my choice to make. Why, if you're going to force the unwilling to structure their society the way you demand, you've just become the most authoritarian government in existence
No one's forcing you to not be a wage-slave, that's your choice. Ultimately the only thing people aren't allowed to do is claim ownership over the means of production without possession; in such a system of ownership, there's few logical reasons to be a wageslave because all infrastructure and resources needed to do your job is in the public commons and you don't have to give someone part of your profits to use their mine.

I love you

I dunno user forcing everyone to work or else in your little is implicitly authoritarian.

Anarchists should just stick to the whole "robots will just do everything lmao" when arguing for their whatever brand of anarcho * they adhere to.

blues clock wise from top

blue- transhumanism
lightblue- individualism
bluegreen- monarchism

grey- nihilism

Pick any one you like and identify yourself as it. They're all based on feels and hackneyed ethical systems.

See in this thread. They'll continue to talk around the actual justifications for their beliefs.

They'll argue over definitions of coercion for hours.

>I dunno user forcing everyone to work or else in your little is implicitly authoritarian.
No one's forcing you to work. You can be a NEET and slowly die from hunger. It's just no one is forced to give you shit for free.
>Anarchists should just stick to the whole "robots will just do everything lmao" when arguing for their whatever brand of anarcho * they adhere to.
That's a Marxist's idea of Communism. Although it's not too unlikely. So maybe you can be a useless NEET after all in the future anarchist society. Don't expect people to like you tho.

different guy here, I've seen this before, but not a consensus on what "authority" means or a cogent explanation of what we're supposed to do without it
not to be a fedoralord, but most people are leaders and are not very independent, they want to be lead, at least to some degree

>No one's forcing you to work. You can be a NEET and slowly die from hunger. It's just no one is forced to give you shit for free.
Uh huh. People use that same line of arguing when defending capitalism. "No one forced Bengali school children to work 12 hours a day they can go starve if they don't want to"

Get fucked.

Authority is the idea that someone with authority has a moral right to force others to do certain things. An anarchist is against that idea and they believe no one has the right to force anyone to do anything.
>not to be a fedoralord, but most people are leaders and are not very independent, they want to be lead, at least to some degree
That's true. but can be mitigated by not raising and teaching people they always have to be obedient and listen to their superiors and that they don't know what's best for them. There might still be people who want to be lead, and that's fine, because following a leader is voluntary, while obeying a ruler isn't.

>Uh huh. People use that same line of arguing when defending capitalism. "No one forced Bengali school children to work 12 hours a day they can go starve if they don't want to"
That is Capitalism causing the problem, not nature. You're basically complaining that life doesn't give you shit for free and others should be forced to give to do so.

only real answer /itt/

fuck em

Fuck off you Cavalier!

>because following a leader is voluntary, while obeying a ruler isn't
Drivel. Obedience doesn't imply unwillingness any more than following.

webmshare.com/play/OGYBW

in the hypothetical eventuality that a large enough territory becomes stateless and that a operatively anarchist society arises how exactly would one type of anarchism get other types of anarchism to go along with their type of anarchism?

wouldnt it basicaly be a ideological, cultural and economic freeforall? once the state of civil war passes any way

also, why would a anarchist society even be ideologicaly homogenous?

why wouldnt primitives live in the forest and collectivists have their farms and sindicalists their factories and an-caps their markets and so on? who would even prevent them? how? based on whos authority?

it actualy seems like thats how it would work, that thats the only way it could work, a state of strained equilibrium based equaly on cooperation and conflict

that usualy gives some interesting results

What the fuck?

Daily reminder that all political ideologies are the same

Hitler was a nazist not a fascist.
Nazism and fascism are 2 different things.
Stalin was an idiot, not a communist

It's all the same

No it's not

National socialism, all other socialism, and all other isms are literally all the same with different rhetorical justifications for their policies

fascism didnt have rethorical justifications

where nazism had whole theories and myths and soviet communism had the works of marx, lenin, stalin etc... fascism just had might makes right

mussolini even stated that fascism has no doctrine

Sooo it sounds like fascism doesn't really exist as a discrete concept

What about Nationalist Capitalism?

it does, it did, it just didnt need justifications

this was sort of one of their main points, a major part of their attitude if you will, that all things being equal no fucks are given

even today the moto of italian fascists is literaly- me ne frego - i dont give a fuck

realy fascism has many similarities to anarchism, you could say the starting point is exactly the same, just that the ethical filter they see things trough is exactly opposite, what an anarchist percieves and criticizes and attacks a fascist celebrates and is proud of, and in both the fundamental thing is freedom, just that for fascists its freedom to order and impose, force and violate, the full freedom to control and dominate

kind of how that guy tells it in salo, 'noi fascisti siamo i soli veri anarchici'

...

that's a nice fantasy and might even make a nice ideology if someone was really gonna follow it.

reducing your doctrine to "because that guy said so" doesn't really make it go away. they don't answer every "why" with a shrug, so what they're selling is still pretense of a is -> ought argument.

well its a realy low maintanance ideology any way, and is easy to relate to people as long as the spokesman has macho body language, they kind of get into conceptual trouble when things get complicated

post rare anarchism.

They are all the same in the classical sense that both are authoritarian reactions to oligarchy, replacing a corrupt, run-amok status quo of property owners who are stealing everything in sight with a powerful state, but the similarities end there.

Socialists argue that the problem is structural to the behavior of unregulated markets and that it is only when the market is state-managed that you can stave off the encroaching coagulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Fascists argue that the problem is not structural but moral, that the system was totally fine before [insert scapegoat here] took over and ruined it for God's chosen, so they use the state to militarize the population and prepare for it to confront the people causing problems.

Socialists use ideological consistency to appeal to liberal intellectuals in the landed gentry/upper middle class to act as a vanguard that convinces the people around them to take part in the revolution. Latter day socialist movements have learned to co-opt identity politics to appeal to lumpen-proletariat who can see the literal benefits of cutting their ethnic minority group a sweet deal.

Fascists use identity politics to appeal to blue collar conservatives and galvanize them in huge numbers. Latter day movements have learned to co-opt ideological consistency to form "true conservative" movements to appeal primarily to religious majorities, but also to the business elite who would benefit.

The truth is that despite what their paid cheerleaders say, oligarchic societies are inherently unstable and those which make peaceful reform impossible make violent revolution inevitable.