ITT: we argue which is the best form of anarchism

Christian anarchism.

>discussion about anarchism
>bring up Mao

Because Plato didn't directly effect humans, besides the dictators he influenced.

I suppose you could call him the grandfather of ideological genocide but then again people have been killing mass quantities of people for various reasons other then ideology so your point is quite moot.

Moot, as in Christopher Poole's masculinity.

National Anarchism.

>discussion about anarchism
>bring up Mussolini

Wow, such hypocrisy.

Do yourself a favor and reconsider what you said, sir.

I don't think any of those exist except in theory, do they?

Anarcho-monarchism

>fascists shit up a thread
>call them out as such
>respond with something factually wrong

Are you legit mentally retarded?

That's an oxymoron.

Anarchy and capitalism are mutually exclusive

No, they don't.

On the subject, since you're an Orthodox Christian, have you ever read The Kingdom of God is Within You, by Leo Tolstoy?

>everyone who isn't an anarchist is a fascist

This is what edgelords actually believe

>Are you legit mentally retarded?
Am I?

You're the autist here for even starting the totalitarian namecalling bullshit in an anarchist thread, when it clearly had nothing to do with it.

This is on you, faggot, not me.

>it's a /pol/ thinks their nationalistic brand of reactionary autism is relevant episode

>it's a faggot thinks everyone here who doesn't agree with him on his special snowflake views is automatically a fascist racist hitler type episode

Rojava is kind of close to anarcho-communism.

Yes

Tolstoy wasn't an Orthodox Christian (or, arguably, even a Christian) though.

No, Rojava is communitarianism.

When you combine them all, you get the international maritime symbol for "I require a tug".

Which makes perfect sense. There is no group more in need of a tug than the anarchists.

I thought he was (or is this one of those, he disagrees with me and so doesn't fit my ideology things?). Anyhow, what'd you think?

It kind of is, but it's actually a legit thing throughout history, especially during the medieval period.

All that nominal almost non-existant state power during the early and mid medieval age created an almost anarchistic society.

Huh, he was formally excommunicated. So he was part of the Orthodox church. I suspect the not even Christian part is exactly what I pointed out with the "disagrees and therefore can't be called as such".

>I thought he was (or is this one of those, he disagrees with me and so doesn't fit my ideology things?)
He was excommunicated, and he believed in reincarnation and later in life believed in Christianity as an idea but didn't think God was real in a literal sense.

>Anyhow, what'd you think?
I think he politicizes Christ' exhortation to non-violence, which is not what Christ intended anymore than he intended his exhortation to socialism to be politicized.

>but it's actually a legit thing throughout history, especially during the medieval period.
No it wasn't, you're conflating communitarianism with anarchism. Furthermore, all these communities had to provide soldiers and money when the king needed it.

Ah, I don't know much about him and frankly don't care enough (or for that matter, at all) about Christianity to want to read it. I was curious for a Christian perspective on the matter.

Would you like the Tolstoyan perspective on the matter?

As someone who knows nothing about any of the movements besides the first two I think anarcho-primitivism is the only one that could possibly not implode on itself because it skipped the middleman and its goal is the collapse of civilization.

Why can't we have pure anarchy? Why do people have to mix their own special snowflake ideology with anarchy?

Anarcho Tyrant.

I don't know much about it. I just assumed it was an odd Christian perspective on anarchism (or an anarchist perspective on Christianity).

Because anarchy is impossible. The point of anarchy is to not have any clear collective goal that a society has to follow to function, so everyone can act as individuals, but shitters just use that idea to say "we should not follow any collective goal (except for mine)".

I think we have a duty to defend our house, our family,our king, our country, if we are called upon to do so.

First post best post.

>All of these spooks
We all know the Anarcho Egoism is the best

And why would that be?

What's with the choice of colour? Personally I think grey and black would have been more fitting.

Individualist anarchism.

All the others are communism by a different name (+ancaps, which, like the others, just describes one choice a Union of Egoists could choose to partake in [but they never would])

Anarcho Nihilism already got Grey and Black

Anarcho-Fascism

I think the Anarchism is incidental (but a very serious aspect) of Tolstoy's thought. That is "anarchism" is a modern label, for an old idea.

For example, I strongly disagree with Psuedo-Constantine that Tolstoy's writing politicizes Christs message. I think that itself is a politicization of Christ.

Politics is the act of legitimating violence. If you don't have legitimate and illegitimate violence. you don't have a state, period. The welfare of the people, property rights, security, protection from outsiders, all of that comes after the legitimation of violence.

Tolstoy sees that Christ rejected all legitimations of violence. He takes very seriously and literally the command to turn the other cheek, to forgive the enemy, and to go the extra mile. And he does so under the common understanding to 'forgive'. It is not 'forgiveness' to shoot a man with no malice in your heart. To forgive a man is to forgive a man, wholly radically, and without condition.

Tolstoy's anarchism comes about when he recognizes the fact that if actually implemented, Christ's teachings would be the end of society as we know it. If we were to all follow Christ's teachings the state would collapse for lack of judges, jurors, jailers and hangmen. Capitalism would collapse because no man would use violence to establish and maintain his property. Where Tolstoy is a radical is that when he realizes these consequences, he does not say 'Christ could not intend this, for to do so would be to disrupt our way of life.'

He recognizes Jesus Christ as a serious man, who means what he said, and said things so troubling to those in power that he was put to death for it. Now, Tolstoy did not believe Jesus was god, unfortunately, but it seems that many Christians are eager to downplay Christ even further than Tolstoy.

grey is a spook

Isn't Stirnerian anarchism inherently nihilistic?

That's very interesting.

>Implying Anarchists shouldn't be lined up and shot

Tolstoy recognizes that Christ meant what he said, and said what he meant. If your eye causes you to sin, it is better to pluck it out. If your state causes you to sin, it is better for it to collapse.

Note however, that this is still as I said, tertiary to Tolstoy's reading of the sermon on the mount. We are not to go out and try to abolish the state, or form political parties, or engage in political action.

We are to remove ourselves from the state, mentally, physically and spiritually, because to do otherwise is to engage in sin: Murder, and extortion, and usury and the taking of blood money.

Once you get used to it, you see that the Government behaves like any other den of sin: They want nothing more than for you to join them, in some small form, so that they can universalize their sin, implicitly reasoning that if their sin is universal, they cannot be condemned for it.

To accept the moral alchemy that allows governments to convert a sinful action into a not sinful one opens the doors to countless heresies and countless situations where moral sense fails.

>Implying we wouldn't forgive you, and pray for you.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the only one which could plausibly work imo since its the only Anarchist tendacy with somekind of an organized goverment type entity behind it. AnCaps is hilariously stupid the rest are just different aspects of Anarcho-Syndicalism/Anarcho-Communism.

Keep fighting the good fight against the fascist dogs comrade

Same reason we have have a duty to defend our home against a fire.

>Implying the fascist aren't as bad

There are literally no fascists in this thread except the ones in your head. Get over yourself.

To protect all of God's children?

But we don't have a duty to do that. Something being good sense is not the same as it being a duty.

>Trying to smear syndicalism by some tenuous association with the unabomber's idiology, "queerism" (whatever that is) and pic related

But Tolstoy does fail in his lack of faith. That is crucial, and it is a great failing.

If you are really going to be a Christian Anarchist, you must believe wholeheartedly in Christ. You must believe that he lived and died and lived again. It is a supernatural thing, a holy thing. You must believe that he transcended all reality.

And so you do what you do, you dissolve the state and all property, because your example is not just a man but a God. Marx said that the poor have nothing to lose but their chains. Christ says that the poor will inherit Eternal Life. If you are a Christian Anarchist you believe that God Himself has sanctified your path away from property and economy.

If Christ is God, then maybe anarchy is economy. If one clings to Christ for his anarchy, perhaps one should therefore cling to Christ in his divinity. How can you take Christ seriously without acknowledging that he was God? This is crucial to every aspect of his public ministry. Perhaps we should work harder to take Christ as he is.

But the Unabomber was right

Yes I note the irony of saying that on the Internet

>Hurr durr technology is bad
Why don't you practice what you preach and never see the doctor again?

I don't? It's a pipe dream anyway. Doesn't mean he's not right. I try.

No, he have a duty to protect our household from harm.

...

I cling to Christ for his divinity. I fully believe he has sanctified this path for me. And my belief in the life everlasting convinces me more than anything that Tolstoy's interpretation of Christ is the right one. If the poor will inherit the earth, who will fight and die for his tiny patch of property?

"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

This history of states has merely been the storing up of treasures, until moths and rust eat them.

You forgot there's americans on this board, right?

I think maybe you should read Dostoevsky's PoV on this in the Brothers K. When Ivan (an atheist) says the Church should be the state, and the Elder Zosima explains why he's wrong..

If everyone were a perfect Christian, yes, there would be no state because you wouldn't need laws. But we wouldn't need doctors either.

Anarcho-fascism

...

And if you wait until everyone is a perfect Christian to start trying to act like one, we won't need Christians either.

No, we don't. It's our household, we can let happen to it what we will. Your notion of duty is built on sand, like literally everything you believe.

Acting like a Christian means fulfilling your duty. Dangers threaten us like fires and other disasters that are a product of the fallen world, and sometimes those dangers are other sinners.

I'm using "house" and "household" here to include occupants and family.

Then you're back to fucking square one. You already said family in the original thing I questioned. On what fucking basis?

Good fucking lord, Socrates would have had a field day with you even if he would have agreed with you; you're a complete fucking imbecile.

When you marry, you have an obligation to protect, when you have children, you have an obligation to protect. When you are begotten, you have an obligation to protect. The basis for these duties is existential, you would not exist without family, and the family you endow depend on you and you accept that responsibility upon endowing them.

Nah. I had no choice in existing. It was thrust upon me against my will. As a child I was raised when I was in no state to engage in a conscious, willing choice about my state of affairs. On this basis, I have no duty to my family, as a man who is forced to take a gift has no duty to reciprocate. Whether I choose to help them lies entirely in my own will, just as it lies within your own whether to serve fiction.

>It was thrust upon me against my will.
Unless you had a positive will to not exist (which you obviously could not have prior to existing), this is not the case.

Then perhaps more precise language would be in order: without my consent.

Regardless, duty to your family is an inherently absurd notion. It is to your benefit to keep to your family, but you have no inherent duty to them, and you would do well to remember that. Unless you want to live in a world where abuse victims are bound to serve their abusers.

You have a duty in a social, cultural, legal and religious sense. What other sense is there?

Anarcho communism. Everything else is meme tier.

>religious duty

Stay in your fucking /rel/ containment threads you fedora.

So, not in any inherent or substantial sense. Good for you for admitting that, you stupid cunt. Also the legal sense is no different than the duty I have to any other person.

>So, not in any inherent or substantial sense
What do you mean by "substantial" exactly? You mean it in Hobbes' sense?

As in it continues to exist if people don't consider it to exist.

> Dangers threaten us like fires and other disasters that are a product of the fallen world, and sometimes those dangers are other sinners.
So we're obligated to commit sin to combat sin?

These duties do continue to exist metaphysically.

>metaphysics

Top fucking kek. What absolute fucking woowoo.

Failing to protect is a very serious sin. If you can find some way to protect without sinning, that is surely preferable, that's up to you.

All relations are metaphysics.

Queer anarchism ofc.

He himself claimed to be one.

In 19th and early 20th century there were Russian "Orthodox" sects of every kind though, Rasputin was said to be in one which organised orgies every sunday for instance, so Tolstoy would easily fit somewhere.

Metaphysics as a term has never been sufficiently defined. But metaphysics existing in any sense but as a field of thought meant to explain concepts such as free will is complete fucking woowoo. There is no reason to believe there to be some sort of platonic realm which gives concepts such as duty, family, nation, etc. an actual existence outside of the mind, and there's nothing etched into the earth that notes them to exist, and so there is no reason to believe that these things actually exist.

>Metaphysics as a term has never been sufficiently defined.
Any truth not composed of atoms.

>Failing to protect is a very serious sin
Oh, so now you're a consequentialist? That's cool.