Ancap interests me

i have just the hat for you

Well, the libertarinism is most likely minarchist political ideology, but the ancap is like the libertarian society squared and with no government, so they're really close

Nice but what to wear with it?
I relly need people to know that I'm fucking special snowflake teen dude

>nick offerman
>anywhere near libertarian

Sleazecore. You think those guys pay taxes?

You mean Ron. Nick is a faggot actor.

wear a red shirt and a blue hat and walk around some ghetto area in LA

Love that style btw. Is that sleaze enf?

Originally, libertarian is a label adopted by certain socialist movements. Only in the US does "Libertarian" automatically equal minarchism, really.

>reproductive rights
>not libertarian
Pick one

You mean liberalism. It is real that european liberals are kind of leftist neo-marxist scum. But the origin of liberalism was on the right side with capitalism, guns and property

>I'm libertarian and really into anarcho-capitalism?

You must be autistic

How is being pro-choice not super libertarian?

>>reproductive rights
"We believe in Reproductive Freedom. We do not accept any federal, state or local rollbacks, cuts or restrictions on our ability to access quality reproductive healthcare services, birth control, HIV/AIDS care and prevention, or medically accurate sexuality education."
>want the government to keep paying for birth control and abortions

source: womensmarch.com/mission

Pick up Ayn Rand
Aquire FUPA

Libertarian starter pack. Food is just slavery, Taste is objective. My metabolism is oppressing my rights

No I mean libertarian socialism. Which is "socialism" (but its fuckign retarded since socialism is inherently statelss and classless so what the fuck are you guys using that word for damn). Unlike liberalism. Which is capitalism.

t. liberal

>How can I dress to let people know I'm libertarian and really into anarcho-capitalism?

>fedora
>fingerless leather gloves
>noose

yw user.

A libertarian might disagree with trump's policy on principle though - as well as defunding PP trump also issued an order basically disallowing any portion of the executive branch to ever mention abortions or any organizations which provide abortions. There are two typical libertarian interests at odds here so I'd say it would be reasonable for someone calling himself a libertarian to pick either side of the debate. He'd likely (though not definitely, because it's not like every libertarian is obligated to follow libertarian principles in every circumstance) have some reservations though.

Communism is stateless and classless, plenty of socialist states have existed (for example the United Soviet Socialist Republic)

thats not socialism though. Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism, they were both communism to him, there being a difference between the two and socialism being an in-between-step toward communism is Leninist/Stalinist revisionism and orthodox Marxists/Leftcoms were calling them on their shit since the Second Internationale. The USSR was by literally no measure socialist in any way. It displayed, again literally, every single defining aspect of capitalism Marx had ever identified in his work, with the exception that the workers had to sell their labor power to the state and its bureaucracy instead of a traditional bourgeois class. It had wage labor, capital accumulation, the commodity form, production for exchange, etc.

They claim to be socialist to have an ideological basis for their disgusting authoritarianism. Fuck that shit. I'm not a Marxist but I'm trying to at least understand my ideological opponents and their theory.

kevin, get off Veeky Forums

And it was total failure with millions of vicvtims. It's literally worse than nazi-Germany.
And USSR is not the only example proving that radical socialism and communism don't work

Hey I'm in no way defending Lenin or Stalin - but I've generally heard socialism defined as the government owning the means of production. Of course if the government is shitty and authoritarian it's just as bad as shitty authoritarian capitalists owning the means of production. The alternative of course is that local governments own the means of production and decisions are directly democratic as often as possible. Which of course is also generally how communism is implemented - though in theory only with unions, and in absence of a formal governmental structure. I agree that minarchist socialism and anarchist communism are functionally similar enough to be considered more or less identical but calling them the same goes against most formal definitions of socialism that I've heard.

>but I've generally heard socialism defined as the government owning the means of production

Nope, Leninist revisionism. That's state-capitalism. There is no government in socialism, because socialism is communism in Marxist theory. If someone claims otherwise, be aware that they are distancing themselves, willingly or otherwise, from Marxism as a theory. Usually they're some form of "Marxist-Leninists" which is what Stalinists and their bastard sons (castroists, etc.) call themselves when they want better PR.

If you actually wanna know about Marxism, I recommend reading Critique of the Gotha Program if you wanna read how Marx envisioned one way that revolutionary transitionary government MIGHT operate. However it is to be noted that Marx actually said “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”, Marxists generally believe that the working class will sort their shit out themselves and that what intellectual elites think of how shit should be run doesnt matter and that theres no point in trying to really envision how things might be after the revolution. The people will organically organise themselves. Or so they say.

Take this second paragraph with a grain of salt, as I said, I'm not a Marxist and my reading of Marx is incomplete.

You just don't know what you're talking about. Buy a marx engels reader and don't engage in this discussion until you've read at least 1/3 of it (ie an average undergraduate's level of familiarity)

Or just read "The German Ideology". Quick read, very comprehensive. Once you're done with that and you're still interested you can read chapter 1 of volume 1 of Capital. Then either hit up Critique of the Gotha Program or finish Volume 1

Interesting, as a someone with a skeptical interest and admittedly not a ton of knowledge in Marxism I have always also believed that "the revolution" will only be meaningful if it is truly organic, organized and executed by the lowest class people. I definitely agree that there's zero evidence that Marxist-Leninist states are any good at achieving real communism or even significantly improving the quality of life of their citizens. I wasn't aware of the revisionism at hand regarding definitions of socialism though, thank you. Although arguably it's more useful to use the more widely used definition of socialism (particularly outside of an explicitly leftist context) just because people know what to expect, but you could also say that's implicitly reinforcing flawed Marxist-Leninist theory.

>Although arguably it's more useful to use the more widely used definition of socialism (particularly outside of an explicitly leftist context) just because people know what to expect
There's a meaningful difference between what most people, especially in America, consider "socialism" (taxes) and actual socialism. It's like if you knew someone who called every pair of pants he say "jeans" even if they're chinos or slacks.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm

Read this if you want to indulge your skeptical interest.

True but I guess I hang out with people who are educated enough to know the Leninist definition. Thanks for the link.

right then it may be important to note that Marx did make a distinction between communism and a lower stage of communism, but that's still communism already, meaning stateless, classless and moneyless, so if they ever say something like socialism being the lower stage of communism then they're spouting revisionism.

Good job OP, you made the political bait thread you wanted to make

Marxism-Leninism has been the only kind of socialism that has been tried normies, just to get that clear.

just dump a jar of spaghetti sauce over your head everyday before you leave the house, that should do the trick.

Try a black leather trench coat, combat boots, any death metal t-shirt, an assault rifle obtained from either your father or grandfather, and a noose for when you chicken out.

Very little metal is "anarcho" capitalist, because metal has always been middle class. "Anarcho" capitalism is an ideology of the upper class that has only been adapted by teenage edgelords in the last ten years or so, during which time metal has become increasingly leftist. The teenage edgelord metalhead ideologies are traditional anarchism and fascism.

That said most metal, including most death metal, is apolitical

Clothing is not THAT politicized lol

This is what these kind of politicalcuck autists look like in real life.

Cannot mix politics and fashion, exept with hugo boss nazi uniforms.

Syndicalism, fascism or MLM marxist-leninist-maoism would be the most effay pol ideologies though. Most libertarians lurk /b/ etc

bow tie and a bullet to the head

Posadism is the most fa ideology. If you disagree, you are simply wrong

Doesn't look that bad desu desu
Not good enough to make up for how unbearable he must be but not ugly at all

>not ugly at all
lemme guess, you're an uggo too?