Direct Democracy

The quality of a society depends very little on its political system. The spirit of the people is what makes the real difference. Anomie, alienation and conflict between different interest - groups kill societies, not being ruled by kings or presidents. All of these systems can be either good or bad, depending on factors not connected to them.

the error is that you are thinking about these systems from the perspective of the bottom, and not the perspective of the top.

what you think doesn't fucking matter.

This is why we have Constitutional Republics.

Autocucks eternally btfo.

The Athens of Pericles sure was well known for its anarchism.

Libertarianism in the modern context is a right wing ideology that respects private property. Anarchism is a left wing ideology that loathe private property and sees the State as it's primary enforcer, which is why the latter must be removed first than the former.

Its almost like the idea of government in and of itself is total bullshit and the idea of no government even more so.

Its almost like humans fucking suck ass.

right wing totalitarianism state run by military junta is the only way.

>Leftists hating the state
You lost me. Does left just means things you hate now?

I just want a state where the government leaves me the fuck alone unless its a matter of immediate public safety

That's fucking it

I just want to be left alone

Nigga plz I sympathize with anarchism. But yes anarchists have worked with socialists before and the major disagreement between is whether one should smash or capture the state.

>Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!

>Some anarchists work with socialists means all anarchits are leftists
Right, im leaving now.

>OG anarchists share a lot of ideological positions with socialists
>don't agree with their methods and the finer details of their vision
>not a left wing movement
And yes morden anarchists see socialists as fellow travelers. Are you an ancap?

Anarchists are all a bunch of autistic retards that don't truly know what anarchy would mean. Am I wrong?

Of course intelligent people wouldn't be anarchists because it would cause chaos because idiots wouldn't have a state to punish them for the wrong doings like a parent would a misbehaving child because they can't comprehend why they should and shouldn't do some things. But if the population was filled with only intelligent individuals then a state wouldn't be necessary and intelligent people would get rid of it for the freedom

Regarding left-anarchism, I don't understand how communes would work, especially in the digital age. Who makes part of the commune? Your family? Your friends? Your town? Your workspace? But how would these not overlap and conflict? Furthermore, nowadays you can work with people all over the world.

How can things be decided effectively if there is no state, unless its all decided by the commune. But that would require intense interaction with one and another, but there is a member limit of 150 to that (more or less the amount someone can "maximally" care about, known as tribal limit).

This seems primitive to me.

clinging to the ''objective intelligence'' meme

Anyone who wants to join?

There is such thing as grassroots initiatives. Ideally an anarchist can decide to do whatever until it affects the commune negatively

Tribalism makes the most sense.

It's like modern nation state except it's smaller, organization can be changed as needed without the group collapsing, the immigration policies are inherently better as foreigner gets adopted instead of being granted citizeship which means he'll be more loyal and there is also an option of expatriationg troublemakers to be trouble somewhere else.

You can't have political democracy without economic democracy, otherwise a group of people will amass wealth exponentially and translate that wealth into power and influence to subvert democracy, which is what has happened. We have economic oligarchy, which to workers is a dictatorship. It will only continue to worsen until a small group of people own all private property.

Democratic socialism is the answer. We should have been having an open and public discussion about this for decades, but it was subverted by the rich, to whom socialism is the worst possible threat.

People aren't just the most valuable part of an economy, they are the whole reason for having an economy. Capitalism by definition affirms capital as the thing of most value - in other words rich people, the legendary "job creators" of Republican mythology. Look at what corporations do: they spend vast amounts of money to find ways to exploit human psychological vulnerabilities to sell stupid shit. Google and Facebook are in the business of this. Data is collected online, at the places you shop, your habits are tracked and tailored advertising is directed at you. A sane society demands an economic system based upon human needs, not exploitation of humanity by the rich.

>muh education
lmao

Quality post

The best system for a population of highly educated people is direct democracy
t. swiss

t. Ancap

I'm a straight up Communist and I find the anarchists at my university to be some of the most obnoxious human beings involved in politics yet many of them seem to want to accociate with me because they think we have similar beliefs(even though I'm pretty sure we don't)

Sell anarchism to a gommie because I don't see the appeal or how it relates to gommunism

Maybe read some Marx or Bakunin if you don't understand the link between anarchism and communism you mongoloid

>Inability for citizens to properly affect change and express their opinions
But that's a misrepresentation, user: individual citizens affect public policy through corporations (fascist kind, not capitalist kind) and militancy in the party.

>It will only continue to worsen until a small group of people own all private property.
source?
Of course you don't have one, marxism nowadays is a-emperical

If you ever talk to me like that again I will come to to your house and personally kick your ass

This is basic information everyone knows who cares about the economy, or should. No wonder why your politics sucks so much.

Attached is a chart of wealth over time. For income over time, pick whatever source you want from these, they're all essentially the same:

google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=915&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=income inequality graph U.S.

>muh wealth inequality

i hope for your sake you're a stormfag pretending to be a marxist to sell people against marxism

I guess this makes outsourcing the problem. Western consumer subjects do not have to deal with the worst of capitalist hierarchy and give no shits about the nature of the people in charge since someone else gets shat on.

>Majority of people vote for the subjugation for the remaining number of people.

Not getting your way is not subjugation you dumb fuck, you still have rights.

>so if you're in the position to pick a system
but doesn't Anarchism mean having no system at all?

How would anarchist deal with a foreign invasion, without a clear hierarchy or a central power structure?

are we talking about America or the whole world?

>Feudalism
>Anarcho Capitalism
Spot the difference.
I'm also not agreeing, since I think Feudalism is a system for a way more decentralised and lawless society (like post-roman Europe) than ours.

this so much

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/03/democracy-vs-epistacracy/

>implying there's any difference between feudalism and practical ancapitalism

>Wtf, all of these systems are shit!
welcome to the real world where it is not about getting what you want but taking what you can get

now choose the lesser evil, cuck

Yeah.

Liberals and anarchists always want to ally with socialists because they think we're similar. But in the end their entire conception of society is different and the only thing we agree on is "shit's fucked up"

>world income distribution
wow that chart has nothing do with the issue of increasing income inequality. Within the United States the income and wealth of the rich continues to increase at much higher rates than the rest of the tax bracket. Industrialization in the 1800s, and income distribution in still developing countries speaks nothing to the problem of income inequality in the west and in developed nations.

Retarded book.

The amount of presuppositions and undefined criteria is no better than any other system.

Absolutely fucking stupid.

Huh... it's almost as if the lowest earners also tend to be the youngest, and thus haven't built up nearly as many possessions as someone who's been working for thirty years, accumulating both more goods as well as a higher salary in line with their increasing age and experience...... really made me think...

And it's almost like, as lower-income workers gain experience over time, they also gain raises, until they move up through the income percentiles, meaning that although the same person who was poor five years ago now has substantially more wealth, this growth isn't represented as growth of "the poorest class" because he has moved out of that class. Woah...

I think it's important to make sure power is decentralized (like the US system of checks and balances as well as city-state-federal governance) in order to balance competing interests and curtail corruption and domination

So representative democracy seems to be the best we can do at this point

I think qualifications should be attached in order to be allowed to vote though, in order to make sure it isn't low information voters fucking the whole show up

I recommend reading Pierre Rosanvallon's books Counter-democracy and Democratic Legitimacy.