Why are anarchists so violent?

>I AM A FREE INHABITANT PURSUANT TO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION KNOW YOUR FUCKING LAWS
>NO I WILL NOT GET OUT OF THE CAR
>HELP HELP I'M BEING OPRESSED
>I DO NOT CONSENT
>I DO NOT CONSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENT
>YOU'RE A NAZI, BRO
fuck I hate anarchists so much

Try to explain to me how you can have a stateless society in an area that already has a state, without tearing it down.

This is the kind of shit I'm referring to. The huge contradiction in anarchism is that for all of the love and respect they say they have for the freedoms they have for their fellow man, anarchists don't give a fuck about if the majority of the good, average people around them want to continue living in their current society peacefully and want to just bomb random shit to get attention.

No I'm just saying, if you want an explanation for why they're violent, there you go.

>Anarchists
>Violent
Compared to?

what you are describing is not an anarchist in any sense of the word

The Man Who Was Thursday kinda shows how silly anarchy is.

Authoritarianism is inherently violent, anarchists are fighting against that.

But wasn't every anarchist in that book not actually an anarchist, but a state agent sent in to infiltrate anarchist organizations?

Yep, and it's something that the fed could in reality manage to fuck up identically even a century later

Because they don't believe in laws. Without laws anything goes, so they act on their basic instincts, which is to hurt others.

B-but Locke said everything would be fine and dandy and Hobbes is a stinking poopy head

You're wrong, brainlet
Anarchists value law and order, they just don't want hierarchies.

Stupid people are more likely to resort to violence when things don't go their way.

>be anarchist
>actual don't believe in anarchy

yes, there has been an idea of governance by rulers and notions of property since recorder history almost universally

So they value vigilante justice? Because that's nigger-tier

How will law and order be maintained? By a mob lynching people they don't like?

karl marx's high priests will read from the holy books to deign his fate

Capitalism and communism meanwhile have killed hundreds of millions of people and perpetrated many genocides and wars . I'm guessing state violence doesn't count though?

how does capitalism kill someone?

Every time someone dies under a capitalist system for any reason, the cause is capitalism. Your uncle Ted had a heart attack? Another claimed by capitalism.

It's akin to blaming communism for all those deaths by famines last century. To be technical communism only caused the famines, while the famines killed em, which is only fair considering how capitalism probably caused the plethora of cheap food that led to uncle Ted's coronary disease.

>communism and capitalism
what fucking economic system are you using if you're rejecting both communism and capitalism

Anarchism will kill a lot more people since there won't be any organization for incentive for people to do anything other than basic subsistence.

I'd say the "deaths" of capitalism result from the society generally being able to save someone but choosing not to due to the value.

The deaths from communism famines result from shitty management, which is a more direct death.

Anarchy believes that all things are held in common, different from communism, where everything is state owned.

The original anarchist thinker was a mutualist. Later thinkers would adopt adaptations of that idea with a more conventionally socialist (mutualism is a form of socialism, I just mean more socialism as most would understand it) basis, and still later thinkers would adopt communism (an anarchist variation that eschews any intermediary state).

fuck you for spoiling the book. i've had it on my backlog for a while

person dying of natural causes can't be blamed on the government. Executing someone for being an enemy of communism is a legit reason to blame communism for killing people

capitalism is basically an interlocking series of private states mediated by a legal-bureaucratic state. Most spend most of their lives selling your labor to a private state (a business) to live a legal life under the legal-bureaucratic state. In reality, private state essentially regulates how you live and act and it can discipline you or in the last resort fire you, an act of social, nutritional and symbolic violence

>Anarchism leads to individuals choosing voluntarily to join whichever corporate bodies they want, if any

>Some individuals will want to live in a society with laws, taxes, a government with a monopoly on force, etc.

>Corporate bodies, syndicates, workers councils, etc. will all still need to negotiate amongst each other for diplomatic purposes

>World anarchy leads to what is effectively the same world system as what came before

the will to power built civilization so I have no problem with violence on principle. Crime though I do, which was not done in some court like commies did. Then theres anarchists which went around LARPing as tribal savages and got holdomored and Francod. Though, it is as they say, we all dig our own graves.

Indian farmer suicides, the sweatshop suicides prompting the addition of the famous foxconn factory 'suicide nets' and 'no suicide clauses' in contracts to keep family members from receiving any compensation from death by suicide, subjecting millions to work in unsafe conditions around hazardous materials especially in 'Special Economic Zones' were local safety and labor laws can't be enforced, workers killed in anti-union violence, privatizing or polluting local sources of drinkable water causing millions of people to go without so on and so forth
Just because the most glaring injustices of market based capitalism are outside the view of your neighborhood doesn't mean they don't exist. This isn't an endorsement of any other system, simply a recounting of some of the most notable examples of deaths that can be directly attributed to capitalism.

dead peasants and strikers get killed because they worship the pagan trinity alongside Marx and the hindu panthenon. Notb ecause there was a trial about being an enemy of the capitalist party like in the USSR or ukrain. Even Republican spain and the anarchist tribes of history killed millions, but it wasn't always because they were anarchists.

this post is a mess

/thread

That's actually not a spoiler, the actual spoiler is the shit with Mr. Sunday.

Leftism

>different from communism, where everything is state owned
Communism is a stateless society. How can state own anything if it doesn't exist?

If you don't view the state as a legitimate entity, then the police (state monopoly of force) have no authority.

In this case, the anarchist sees his own use of force as no different to that of the police or army; merely as having a different agenda.

Wrong, brainlet!
You cannot have laws without hierarchies.

Only the socialist ones are, true anarchists believe in personal ownership and the NAP

true anarchists live in tribes and call themselves things like "The Huns" or "The Mongols"

Why are ancaps still a thing

When you see the world through anarchist lenses all authority seems like its meant to oppress you, be it the state, businesses or even your landlord, it just really boils down to how you see private property

>complaining about spoilers for a hundred year old book

Do you not know it was the convict sending Pip the money either?

>ancap
>anarchism

an·ar·chy
[ˈanərkē]
NOUN
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:

> communism
> stateless society

>a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
>property rights

Yes, completly compatible with capitalism.

Not again

1. Because the media portrays them so
2. Because they resist legal violent oppression.
They aren't, outside of edgy people who like being right in internet debates.

>TIL

Kys redditarchist

Yes it is

The fact they are not listed in chronological order triggers me.

It would even work to create the point of the image, since Rothbard wouldn't pen his theories until decades after the very latest of those other men (Kropotkin I think).

That's the definition.

>what is consent?
t. brainlet

...

Socialists can't be anarchists, collectivism is inherently authoritarian

>why won't these stupid proles join our movement after we torched their cars?

Topkek

>what is consent?

Cuckoldry

>since the dawn of humanity, private property laws, capitalism and the state have existed

no you're retarded

you're enforcing non-statehood on people by violent means

have you considered the possibility that some people like having a government? You just want to force your way of life on them, fascist.

>collectivism/individualism dichotomy
This meme has to end

I don't know how you got the opposite of what I was saying from my statement

But the state is inherently forced on you if you're an anarchist, I guess you're baiting

>2. Because they resist legal violent oppression.
bombing things tends to attract the attention of law enforcement, it's not "oppression".

also;
>anarchist
>calling anyone else edgy