Anarchist literature

this is a child's evaluation
kek

The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer is one of the best anrachist criticism of the state but a weak exposition of anarcho capitalism compared to other books.
The first part is gold
the second part is bronze

Yes, and from reading other essays by the same author and other people from his circle.

Kaneko Fumiko's autobiography is really interesting. It's technically not espousing anarchy, but she was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Japanese for attempting to kill the Emperor as part of an anarchist plot.
It's basically a look into her early life, and a really nice dissection of Japan's class system at the time.
I will say that you kinda have to be interested in it in the first place though.
Ha Ki-Rak's "A History of Korean Anarchist Movement" is much more historical and delves more into the underlying social issues that eventually gave rise to the Korean People's Association in Manchuria.
Both are pretty decent in my opinion, though translations of them vary in quality.

Depends. Do you mean actual anarchy or anarcho-statism?

Nice oxymoron, bro-on

It's not even case of tend to form.

Some people are just smarter/stronger/more charisma etc, hierarchies will always form no matter what.

Nice determinism. You know we've evolved past the point of being completely driven by tendencies and who's the strongest right?

Even if that were true do we still not follow leaders with more charisma?
Do we not still view charismatic leaders as a little bit more "above" ourselves and that they have some special role in guiding us?

The state of anarchism inevitable leads to the formation of a state, after all it is the anarchists who state that anarchism is the natural state of things before the state of man. So is the state not the inevitable progression from the state of anarchism?
If the anarchists get their way then they accomplish nothing but perpetuate a cycle of anarchism to sate to anarchism and back to state again.

However, as of now it seems that the state is too powerful and has placated its subjects so well that a revolution is very unlikely.

Depends, what you're talking about is a very modern Western phenomena.
I don't deny that the majority of people probably do see leaders as elevated, but equally there are quite a few societies that exist in a much more Utilitarian fashion, or have a different cultural understanding of hierarchy. I think it also depends on the definition of Hierarchy, for example if there is a facilitator in an anarchist town in Rojava that organises town meetings and committees, does the existence of that facilitator instantly create hierarchy?
I think most people have a degree of investment in the system they live in, but I don't believe that people have their will subsumed by it.

>What is big data?
>How do compnies like Google and Facebook make so much profit off "free Services"???

Durrrrr durrrrr i is Smart and free

reminder that taxation is rape

>people in this thread actually think anarchism from both left and right can actually happen.

Jesus Christ if this board does have a supposed "high iq" you guys suffer from the same thing academics always have blatant idealism.

Completely failed to address my point, but congrats, I think I just haemorrhaged a few more neurons trying to follow your thought process.
What are you arguing? That infrastructure inherently eradicates individual human will?
No one's denying that there are deterministic elements to human nature, but the argument I'm making is that it's not all encompassing and that there are other aspects in play.
4/10 got me to reply

Uncle Ted, Bakunin, Kroptokin, Stirner are all worth reading (also read the Daoists and Zen masters my nigger)

Anarchy is not against hierarchy or leadership. Not inherently at least.

The only non-autistic type of anarchy is Christian anarchy. Read some Tolstoy.

we also had a tendency to shit in the woods and die of preventable diseases

Everyone should read Bookchin.

What's the point? We all know it won't come about in a way we'll be able to see if anarchism actually works or not!
Don't waste your time on this, OP
Just study the system and learn how to exploit it.

Reminder that anarcho-capitalists are anthropocentrists, the worst kind of x-centrism

bump

In Defense Of Anarchism - Robert Paul Wolff
Anarchy, State and Utopia - Nozick

The latter is for minarchy thought

though*

If I had to read just one of his books which one should it be?

>Anarchist
>Capitalist
Pick one
Capitalism falls apart without law or the use of violence coercing cooperation
Numberless animal societies naturally live communally and competition among individuals in a species is limited
Capitalism was useful at one point but isn't any longer, same as monarchy
The only reason to ever be an AnCap is if you believe you'll be one of the ruling class, and that shows that it's a hypocritical ideology for 99% of people

Religion is philosophical retreat
You can't figure out what "God" means with a definition that is evident in reality and has perceivable effects without contradicting yourself

>Capitalism falls apart without law or the use of violence coercing cooperation
The vast majority of everyday interactions aren't compelled with violence.
>Numberless animal societies naturally live communally and competition among individuals in a species is limited
>animal societies
>relevant
There are numberless animal societies that rape, this doesn't mean anything per se for humans.
>Capitalism was useful at one point but isn't any longer, same as monarchy
You either don't know what capitalism is, or you don't haven't read into the socialist calculation debate.
>The only reason to ever be an AnCap is if you believe you'll be one of the ruling class, and that shows that it's a hypocritical ideology for 99% of people
Anyone that owns property would be a ruling class of their own property. The only reason to be an Ancap, which I don't really identify with, is to reject the concentrated monopolized use of violence, which is the state.

>The vast majority of everyday interactions aren't compelled with violence.
Borders, rule of law, not taking what you want, obeying things you disagree with, not destroying things you don't like, acting in a uniform way with people around you.
Yeah.
>Animal societies being irrelevant
You are an animal.
The vast majority of humans find the act of raping someone psychologically damaging and repulsive.
That's not a refutation. I'm saying that competition in societies currently is driven by artificial scarcity and a lot of ideas that are basically fake which people have internalized into their behavior.
>Capitalism is still useful
My thinking that isn't isn't from properly understanding it, but from seeing that profit is only generated from the exploitation of a person.
You can't earn a million dollars, but you can steal a million dollars from people you hire on contracts that they can't refuse, because they'll die of preventable diseases without a wage that lets them afford healthcare. Or become a debt slave.
>Ruling class of your own property
That doesn't make any sense. A class is a social grouping. Even if you follow that definition, then you would just be the new ruling class set against the working class of your hirees, which means that you are creating a new smaller state. Which isn't anarchy, because it's a state. Thus contradicting it. That's why you can't be an anarcho-capitalist. It's just a trendy meme ideology for Stefbots and Incels who think that they would come out on top in the impossible idea they envision.

>Borders, rule of law, not taking what you want, obeying things you disagree with, not destroying things you don't like, acting in a uniform way with people around you.
How many of those things make up day to day interactions? People act without the state without knowing it already.
>I'm saying that competition in societies currently is driven by artificial scarcity and a lot of ideas that are basically fake which people have internalized into their behavior.
>artificial scarcity
No.
>My thinking that isn't isn't from properly understanding it, but from seeing that profit is only generated from the exploitation of a person.
Profit comes from mutually beneficial exchange, unless it has coercive disruption from an aggressor. When you buy something from the store, you both agree that you value the new good you receive more than what you gave up.
> You can't earn a million dollars,
But you can, many have. Buy bitcoin and HODL, you might make it someday.
> but you can steal a million dollars from people you hire on contracts that they can't refuse, because they'll die of preventable diseases without a wage that lets them afford healthcare. Or become a debt slave.
They have given those people what is undeniably their best available situation. If it was not, they would not have taken that work. Healthcare is one of the few things that hasn't drastically decreased in price over time, I wonder why that is. Is it due to regulation and monopolized intellectual property? Or is the market? Hmm
>That doesn't make any sense. A class is a social grouping. Even if you follow that definition, then you would just be the new ruling class set against the working class of your hirees, which means that you are creating a new smaller state. Which isn't anarchy, because it's a state. Thus contradicting it. That's why you can't be an anarcho-capitalist. It's just a trendy meme ideology for Stefbots and Incels who think that they would come out on top in the impossible idea they envision.
The state is involuntary. Anarcho-captalism is a voluntary association of people. What would most likely happen is rules and groups would form based around property rights. You don't see land lords as a ruling class, but they still have rules over their own dominion. You may have rules over your property, voluntarily. Anarchism doesn't mean that there are no rules. There is no contradiction. Actually read Rothbard and try to understand it before posting.

First off.
>Capitalism being a voluntary association of people
Working to feed yourself for someone who will profit off of your necessity to work for him so that you don't die of starvation/disease doesn't sound voluntary to me. Working for anyone else will also be the same conditions in an unregulated market.
>Artificial scarcity flat out not existing
Have you seen companies withdraw products and hoard resources to increase demand for them?
Have you actually looked at any logistics numbers for how much food is produced worldwide and wasted?
Do you even fucking exist? Do you have a brain?
>Bitcoin earns you a million dollars, and you can earn a million dollars fairly
The only reason you're getting money from it is because it's a pyramid scheme that will collapse. It exists as a scam. Blockchains are useful but not in a crypto application.
Literally the only reason you can make a profit is because it will fuck everyone investing over eventually. You are participating in a thief's game so that he can steal and you can have the better of it. Not fairly earning.
Also, you can say employers have given their employees a better situation temporarily, but the system that enables them is responsible for it in the first place. They're relieving them of starvation which is mutually reinforced by them in order to force them to participate.
>Profit is mutually beneficial exchange
Wrong. Not voluntary, first off, because many profits are made from necessities being sold. Second, people aren't rational economic actors, and you can't expect a market to function ethically when resource distribution can't happen properly in it because people aren't rational economic actors.
>Anarchism doesn't mean no rules
I never said that. I said it means no state. When I said that ruling class vs. working forms a state, I mean that a state is formed by an asymmetry in power mixed with class agitation, which is what I described in the previous post.
>Land lords are not ruling class
They benefit from selling the people necessities which they cannot get elsewhere and hoard them via legal property rights. What does that sound like to you? Unfair involuntary exchange? Because that's what it is.
Rothbard also said that a market selling unwanted children could stop child abuse, if that gives you any idea of how anarcho-capitalism solves problems.

There are two sorts of anarchists. The common kind is nothing but a heaven stormer. These are the hard leftists and anarcho capitalists, along with every other utopian who thinks the state is something real. They are like the "atheists" who engage with theists on the terms of the latter.

The other kind of anarchist is less common. These are the ones who realize that the state is only an idea, and to attempt to dismantle in a physical sense can only lead to the creation of another ideal hierarchy in the mind. These are worth reading. Stirner, Novatore, Palante, Landstreicher, Pessoa to a lesser extent, and so on.

Well, yeah. The state is a spook, but showing that it's false doesn't stop people from believing in it. You do have to physically stop the people who fall for the idea from exerting control.

An idea can still subjugate people and those people can embody the idea of it in reality.

>Working to feed yourself
Do you expect people to feed you? And have you seen the worldwide poverty rates with liberalized trade? Markets feed people.
>Have you seen companies withdraw products and hoard resources to increase demand for them?
That doesn't mean scarcity doesn't exist. Pick up a dictionary.
>Have you actually looked at any logistics numbers for how much food is produced worldwide and wasted?
Have you actually looked into the laws that prevent food sales, or even giving it away, after a certain point?
>being a salty nocoiner
Invest in a portfolio that's front loaded with bitcoin. You have time before it hits $400K.
>Wrong. Not voluntary, first off, because many profits are made from necessities being sold.
It's mutually beneficial a priori. I can prove this based on the fact that you did it.
>Second, people aren't rational economic actors, and you can't expect a market to function ethically when resource distribution can't happen properly in it because people aren't rational economic actors.
People don't need to be rational economic actors, whatever that means to any given person with varying norms. They demonstrate that they psychologically value one thing more than another. Ex post, they perceive a psychological profit or loss on this transaction. Goes for both parties.
>state is formed by an asymmetry in power mixed with class agitation
State doesn't require a mixed class agitation.
>Unfair involuntary exchange
That's your norm. I can demonstrate that you don't actually believe this though. I'm guessing you payed for your internet, you deemed that transaction fair, and it was voluntary.
>Rothbard and child markets
If a crackhead selling their child could lead to a better situation for that child, I'm all ears.

Proudhon is fairly interesting, in part because he's probably the first explicitly anarchist thinker, but also because his ideas evolved over his lifetime. In the end, he abandoned anarchism in favor of federalism on essentially pragmatic grounds. Principles of Federation goes into this. What is Property? is worth reading as well, if only to better understand the axiomatic role property plays in various theories of political economy.

Also, left libertarianism is not logically inconsistent. Anyone who's lived communally (e.g. live-in gf or bf) can attest to this. The problem arises when anarchists advocate too fervently for their chosen economic system and start talking about living "under anarcho-communism" or "under anarcho-capitalism". Truth is, libertarianism is about empowering the community, and it's not on political philosophers to decide, but the *actual people living in that community* In Proudhon's estimation, federalism is a pragmatic compromise between libertarian and collectivist impulses. I'm inclined to agree and believe it's what made the US successful.

>Do you expect people to feed you
I don't expect anyone to do anything altruistically, if that's what you're asking.
>Scarcity doesn't exist
I wasn't saying that. I was saying that there would be enough food and medicine for the vast majority of the population if it was distributed in a logistically better and more efficient way, i.e not a market
>Have you looked into the laws about food sale prohibition
Yes. The vast majority of food is thrown away or prohibited from being sold when it is still good.
>salty nocoiner
You can do whatever you want with your imaginary-valued internet hashes. Just get out before the bubble bursts so that you don't get fucked over, and maybe consider how much heat and emissions mining is creating.
>People don't need to be rational actors for a market to work
You can't have an entire logistics network run by people who don't understand logistics and coincidentally buy things based on their psychological pleasures. That is very, very inefficient. If you propose that a market is only a demonstration of psychological value, too, then you're basically saying that it's a competition on who can manipulate the consumer best.
>State doesn't require class agitation
If there was no class agitation there wouldn't be class, and that would mean no more state. The existence of classes means class agitation, because classes have different vested interests that leads to them fighting for different laws in their own interests. The mediator created by the ruling class through this to deal with the workers is the state, which ensures the rulers ability to rule and grants them legal ownership.
>Voluntary exchange/internet point
I don't pay for my own internet, but I know that's not what you're saying.
I'm pretty sure you're trying to say that if I did pay for my own internet, I would be deeming the exchange fair and giving consent, regardless of my personal qualms, because I want the internet more than I want to avoid paying.
But I'm saying meaningful consent can't truly be given in a power asymmetry because the conditions are manipulated to force consent/volunteering, so it's not a worthwhile measure. Because even if I did want the internet and could avoid paying, it's impossible for me to reasonably find an avenue to get it otherwise, so the "consent" is manufactured.
>Crackhead selling their kid
To pay for more crack, no doubt.
Who do you think would have the money to buy them and be willing to pay? Some altruistic rich person? That doesn't seem likely to me. The child isn't property, either. The child has the ability to assert his own existence, unless it is taken. Then, you would say that the child could be sold as property if the parent could assert their ownership, but how? Removing the child of his ability to resist, probably with violence? Beating him and selling him? You can't reasonably believe that is okay for the world's functioning unless you are sick.

This.
Anarchism is fine, "anarcho capitalism" is not an anarchist position or one that makes any sense.
Speaking as an anarchist, I disagree with federalists but they are more reasonable than ancaps.

Anarcho-primitivism is the only way to go.

What a futile waste of time that is. You may as well try to stop cattle from lowing.

What's your point?
I might have been one of those cattle if nobody led me to realizing that it's all bullshit.
I think a lot of people just need a very determined, loud wake-up call.
Or are you saying it's more reasonable to live in the cracks of the scepter with other like-minded people than to try and bring the ideas to more people?

>a phase
kys subhuman
>human nature
Holy fuck you high schooler this isn't the fucking 1600s.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism. It's idiotic nonsense.
Wrong. Not an argument, now go neck yrself.
hurr durr its IN-EV-UH-BUH-BULLL!!!!

YES IT IS YOU FUCKING RETARD THE LITERAL ONE THING ANARCHISTS CAN AGREE ON IS THAT ALL HIERARCHIES MUST BE ABOLISHED. THATS WHY ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS ARE NOT ANARCHISTS. HOLY SHIT HOW CAN YOU BE THIS STUPID

You are actually dumb.
That's the entire point of anarchism, destroying unjustified hierarchies and making every individual more free because it logistically improves the lives of every individual

>evident in reality
t. retard that demands everybody have a correspondence theory because he was brainwashed into Platonist nonsense

What others believe will always be outside of your control. No one surpasses an idea except by dislodging it in their own mind either through understanding it, or simply choosing not to think about it any longer. Proselytism only works for religions. Conscious egoism can only be self taught, whether it involves reading Stirner or not

How is it useful if it doesn't relate to my world at all?
It's like, oh great, there's a God, but I can't prove he actually affects anything at all. Why does it even matter to me, then?
If you say that needing evidence that you can see in reality to believe in something is "correspondence theory nonsense" then how do you even have evidence for your own beliefs?
What is even your point?

>distributed in a logistically better and more efficient way, i.e not a market
Read Hayek's Use of Kowledgve in Society. It cannot exist.
econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
>You can't have an entire logistics network run by people who don't understand logistics and coincidentally buy things based on their psychological pleasures
You're so fixated on macro scale ideas without knowing what makes up any economic system. People have desires and other people have services or goods that may alleviate them. People exchange and come to prices and quantities of based on the value that these things give each other. There is no central planner that can do this better than a market mechanism.
>The mediator created by the ruling class through this to deal with the workers is the state, which ensures the rulers ability to rule and grants them legal ownership.
You're assuming the ruling class creates the state, and that the creation is to deal with workers. Neither of which is necessarily true, and the ruling class and workers change all the time. There is also no legal ownership when it comes to the state because there is no clear property rights of an entity that is represents others.
>meaningful consent can't truly be given in a power asymmetry because the conditions are manipulated to force consent/volunteering
But this isn't true, and you are getting something out of the transaction that is beneficial to you. Without that transaction you would be WORSE off. There is no manipulation and the consent is not forceful.
>Who do you think would have the money to buy them and be willing to pay?
Someone who places a higher value over the child than that parent. I don't entirely agree with Rothbard on child markets and wouldn't want to live somewhere that has children being sold on the streets. What you cannot deny that the cost to families that can't have children right now is much higher than it would be in a situation without the ability to legally relinquish your guardianship over a child to someone else with ease.

Well, if I find the company of egoists more comfortable, how am I supposed to undertake making more egoists? Is it a moot effort?

Just because you say something in all caps, doesn't make it true.

>Linking me a refutation of a centrally planned economy
I am not arguing for a central planned economy. I am arguing that it would be in the best interest of people to negotiate with each other in decentralized affinity groups what they need and give/take it without a barrier of currency or legality, on the acknowledgement that affinity groups doing this will mutually ensure each others survival. It is not done in an economically competitive way because it is framed as cooperation for a mutual goal, and nobody is rewarded more with more currency or goods aside from occasional personal gifts for contributing more. No councils, no markets. No elected officials. Gift economy, everything given is free. Hard anarchism.
>The market mechanism best distributes things according to people's desires and necessities
Wrong. If you allow an unregulated market mechanism to exist in anarcho-capitalism, it will force people into participation charging them extortionate amounts for basic resources. It will take slaves and sell people as property on the assumption they are all "well off" more as a slave than they would be starving to death otherwise. You will not be the winner in that "exchange."
>Basing meaningful consent on choosing being a net benefit
If you put a gun to my head and tell me to give you fifty dollars, is that a meaningful consent where I'm buying the product of my life against the alternative of dying?
You've created the conditions where it is necessary by taking the gun for yourself and putting yourself in a position where I can't resist, thus manufacturing consent. However, no one will believe you if you tell them I consented to giving you the money, because you robbed me and everyone with eyes can see that.
Now consider the gun the threat of starvation, the man the private company, and the victim of the robbery the worker.
Your argument is bullshit.
>Assuming the ruling class doesn't create the state
I mean. Urban and centralized police in the U.S were originally hired by factory and plantation owners to bust unions and catch slaves, the workers are pretty much static in this country, and there's not really an argument for your case historically.
If the ruling class doesn't create the state, then who ensures the existence of a ruling class? And what qualms would an AnCap even have with a state if the ruling class doesn't own it?
They do own it. They assert all existing control over it.
>The child ownership thing
I am not going to argue that because it is so removed from reality there is no case for it.
Also
>Hayek/Austrian Economics
is a goddamned joke. There is absolutely nothing going for it. It's a Porky scam.

Zerzan ftw

If they are cajoled by you into a pretense of conscious egoism or, worse still, if they're actually convinced to believe something religiously because it makes them feel better, and they call this thing "egoism" as Randians call their sham hero cult, where exactly is the personal intercourse in this association? I much prefer to spend time with thoughtful people who disagree with me, even though they don't realize the extent of their eigenheit yet, than with shallow, impressionable thinkers that mimic the ideologues whose words strike most pleasantly against their ears.

How can I be sure I wasn't the person cajoled in the first place?
I don't care about being faithful to an idea for the sake of idealism, but I do want to enjoy the full benefits of the freedom egoism professes itself to enable

>without a barrier of currency
Currency came about naturally without government as a way to eliminate the double coincidence of wants.
>everything given is free
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
>it will force people into participation charging them extortionate amounts for basic resources
Market forces don't reward those that price similar things higher than their competitors. Basic resources are low in price due to abundance.
>If you put a gun to my head and tell me to give you fifty dollars, is that a meaningful consent where I'm buying the product of my life against the alternative of dying?
That is better than someone shooting you without giving you an option, but that isn't the actual situation and not an argument. The base line is starvation, markets alleviate starvation. If you did nothing you would starve, regardless of the fact that someone is charging for food. You don't seem to understand that markets are feeding more people than anything else has in the history of mankind. Less people starve now than in any time period in history due entirely to liberalized markets.
>urban and centralized police were union busting
There's a difference between an involuntary police force that is backed by state violence and a company hiring a Pinkerton agency voluntarily due to terrorist agitators violently attacking people who were working.
>plantation owners to catch slaves
Mark Thornton has a great piece on this. The state created a situation in which catching slaves was subsidized by all tax payers, allowing slavery to last longer than it otherwise would have. Not hired by plantation owners, but forced upon people by the state.
>If the ruling class doesn't create the state, then who ensures the existence of a ruling class?
If the ruling class is only existing due to a state, then what is the issue with anarcishm?
>And what qualms would an AnCap even have with a state if the ruling class doesn't own it?
Because it's the monopolized use of violence, I'm against the use of unwarranted violence.
Austrian Economics is growing rapidly and was the only business cycle theory to correctly explain the 08 recession. It's ok, if you don't understand economics.
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” -Rothbard

Whether or not you enjoy these "freedoms" has nothing to do with other people. Egoism doesn't provide you with anything. This is elaborated on in Stirner's Critics. Everyone is equally egoistic. Egoism is a fact of all life. The person who sacrifices themselves for their nation is just as egoistic as the person who sees through the charade because the former wouldn't have sacrificed themselves if they didn't believe a greater reward were coming to them in another life, or their family were in imminent danger. This self sacrificing individual is not conscious of their egoism. It is exploited by others who are more conscious of theirs. This former state is called "duped egoism."

have you ever met an anarchist?

anarchists are the retarded front of the left

why do you think anarchists are retarded?

>Currency
Yes, but everyone knows why it exists. We've also seen it's failings as a way of dealing with the double coincidence of wants. It is better to not insist reparations for something in the form of currency and to mutually agree that people can have things that they can get without hurting others instead of demanding a token value for something
>No free lunch
And? Giver and taker can shoulder the cost. It is a mutual exchange based on agreement to create a better structure.
>Markets don't reward higher prices than competitors
"Competitors" collude to establish price floors as high as they can extort from people.
>Less people starving now
That doesn't change how much food is being wasted and the fact the people are still starving. People dying of preventable disease too, etc.
The amount of resources versus the amount of failings in distribution makes it impossible to deny a logistics error
>The gun analogy
That is the situation, like I said, it's the threat of violence via the withholding of necessities. Essentially they're the same, both are active acts of violence which result in death unless a coerced exchange occurs. You are denying it because it kills your idea of "voluntaryism" and ruins your entire argument.
>The state enforced slavery, not the plantation owners
The plantation owners owned the slaves and paid the people in government to prolong slavery. The state and the private sector are the exact same fucking thing, they're two fat parasites leeching on each other.
Who the fuck do you think had an interest in paying the slave catchers? It was the slave owners paying the government to pay the slave catchers.
>If the ruling class creates the state, what's the problem with anarchism?
That's not logically inconsistent. You get rid of the state as an apparatus for the ruling class to maintain their rule, and they evaporate without being able to create another one to maintain themselves if you prevent them from doing it.
>Defending Austrian economics
This creates sweatshops in third world countries. This kills collective bargaining of workers. There is no defense for it. Supply and demand ordaining resources in a market equitably is a myth, it is based solely on the ability of a company to manipulate high demand and choke supply.
You are only defending it because you can't foresee and create/operate in a better system, or you falsely think you will benefit from it.
>Being against monopolized violence but supporting the market and private companies
You already think that the market equitably provides resources, and I'm of the opinion that the hoarding and rent-seeking in it + manipulation breeds structural violence.
You can not be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time because anarchism is against the monopolization of violence and coercion, and the state and private companies are both monopolization of violence and coercion
Rothbard was not an anarchist. He stole the word to look legitimate.

they just are, there are intelligent ones but they don't associate with the actual movements and could be charged with being lifestylists. Though, its fair to point out that many of them are far more intelligent than most state socialists, the majority of them are insufferable criminal-minded folk who don't deserve a platform to spread their insanity. An-caps, An-soc, Lib Soc, Market Soc, Syndicalits etc are insufferable retards almost universally. Anarchist literature is also obviously less intellectual, abstract or rooted in theory than statist political theory. Which is why most of their rhetoric reduces down to just meme'ing and blowing things up (not that I mind that).

An-caps are not anarchists
Every other anarchist hates them and their guy (Rothbard) stole the word and later admitted to it being a mislabel

Ancom with a deep concern for and love of the outdoors,here's some people I have to recommend.
Peter Kropotkin
Murray Bookchin
Henry David Thoreau
Leo Tolstoy
Edward Abbey

>lifestylists don't follow established tendencies

Nice try, champ. Mix a little more thought with that bait next time

It's not about theory but history and application.

The "Failure of Anarchism"
This video shows the inevitable outcome of Anarchism when you really implement it.

youtube.com/watch?v=k73Eiux2O0A

>failings as a way of dealing with the double coincidence of wants
No we have not.
>mutually agree that people can have things that they can get without hurting others instead of demanding a token value for something
This is how money came about. You're dead wrong on this one.
>And? Giver and taker can shoulder the cost. It is a mutual exchange based on agreement to create a better structure.
Giver and taker do shoulder the cost. And it is a mutual exchange already.
>"Competitors" collude to establish price floors as high as they can extort from people.
Every competitor has the incentive cheat on the collusion.
>That doesn't change how much food is being wasted and the fact the people are still starving. People dying of preventable disease too, etc.
The amount of resources versus the amount of failings in distribution makes it impossible to deny a logistics error
You're denying how we limit starvation, which is market processes. It isn't happening magically. Butchers don't stock their food benevolently.
>Your stupid gun analogy
Aggressing on someone is not even remotely the same as not giving them something that doesn't belong to them.
>The state and the private sector are the exact same fucking thing, they're two fat parasites leeching on each other.
One is voluntary, the other is not.
>Who the fuck do you think had an interest in paying the slave catchers?
Rent seekers who want their costs to be forcibly paid for by other people.
>evaporate without being able to create another one to maintain themselves if you prevent them from doing it
Marx nu male meme. Good grief
>You are only defending it because you can't foresee and create/operate in a better system, or you falsely think you will benefit from it.
I don't defend what exists. I defend anarchism.
>sweatshops
You are privileged to the point that you can't comprehend someone being in a place in which they would voluntarily work in a brutally harsh situation.
>kills collective bargaining
Good
>Supply and demand ordaining resources in a market equitably is a myth, it is based solely on the ability of a company to manipulate high demand and choke supply.
Read any economics textbook.
>You already think that the market equitably provides resources, and I'm of the opinion that the hoarding and rent-seeking in it + manipulation breeds structural violence.
I never said anything about equitable. I only say that it is the system that is with minimal violent aggression and maximum prosperity.
>You can not be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time because anarchism is against the monopolization of violence and coercion, and the state and private companies are both monopolization of violence and coercion
Private companies aren't monopolization of violence and coercion. Check your premises.
>Rothbard was not an anarchist. He stole the word to look legitimate.
Rothbard was, by definition, an anarchist. You can't steal a word, and he looked less legitimate for using the word.

Ok, thank you user. I already knew that, gud input.

You are not an anarchist. You call yourself one, but the only "anarchist" philosopher who supports capitalism is Rothbard. Anarchism has been around as a political theory for hundreds of years, and has always been anticapitalist. Rothbard's theories only came to prominence in 1940.
You are bullshit.
Every other anarchist aside from your ilk will see you as what you are and expel you with the same force as the capitalists whose boots you lick as soon as they hear you go on with your market cultist trash.
You would be fine with a government was long as it had "Inc." slapped on the end of the name and used blockchains.
Goodnight.

My Disillusionment in Russia - Emma Goldman

>MUH UUUUUUSE
kys you irrelevant fucking utilitarian
Evidence doesn't exist. Why are you on Veeky Forums if you are philosophically illiterate?

No, it's true because I'm an anarchist.
HURR HRUR HURR MUH HUMAN NACHURRR

I hate your kind, being from the left or the right.

Read the Bread Book
thebreadbook.org/

If ya want something that's pretty easy to understand and goes over all of his ideas in an approachable manner then I would definitely say start with The Next Revolution.
If you want to read his best work and the one that goes way deeper into theory and the explanations for how he reached his conclusions in The Next Revolution, then I would suggest The Ecology of Freedom. (Reading The Next Revolution before it will make the ideas presented in The Ecology of Freedom much easier to read and digest though due to it giving you a nice introduction to it all)

these anons know where it's at

there's nothing admirable about hating what you don't understand, lad

...

>because many profits are made from necessities being sold
I'm sorry, but where will necessities come from without the drive of profit to make them? Will people just produce necessities and give them away out the kindness of their own heart, for no gain of their own? Profit incentivizes making things people want and need

You could make the same argument for "at least it's not the big corporations!".
During the entire NN retardation, the recurring thing seems to be people suggesting you're either pro-state or pro-big corporation, depending on if you're pro or anti, you couldn't possibly just be opposed to the state AND the monopolies and special treatment that the state is interested in giving big corporations like Comcast and Netflix.
No, you have to be either a vile shill for one or the other, which in reality is a shrewd narrative crafted by the state by backing of large immoral corporate entities.

You shouldn't trust the government, and you shouldn't trust big corporations much either, particularly when they cozy up with the government for special exploitation rights enforced by law.

I say the same to you.

jesus christ almighty classcucks are retarded

This is too weeb for my taste, good stuff but too weeb

As you said, "unjustified hierarchies". Anarchism isn't opposed to relations of power as a whole because that would be literally impossible

Guy is more of an anarchist than you statists. If it’s red, it’s statist.

>the fucking responses

and its own what?

Assuming that Anarchism can work, it will only work if there is no external organization that is more powerful and more capable than the anarchist "community" or "commune" or whatever. Throughout history, ever since civilization started there is always some organization more powerful than a bunch of unorganized, non-hierarchical cluster of people, and these very people inevitable succumb to their rule.
If at all Anarchism has managed to gain some sort of foothold in history, it has always only ever been a "phase" that occupies a temporary vacuum, a disordered precursor before the inevitable rise of order and organization.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rojava
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

>"phase"
check back in a few years
Also don't forget Zomia, which also exists because it is situated at a very distant region making it very inconvenient for the Chinese government to touch it and since it is technically part of China no foreign power tries to take it, it's also just a small village.