Ancom

minarchism best ism

For the majority of human history, we've existed in AnCom collectives. The capitalist society of the last 3000 years is the anomaly.

I don't know what AnCom is supposed to be and I won't spend precious time reading up on another thing that wont further my pursuit of hapiness.

However I've been to Cuba and while they all were working under communism and had certain quota's to fill of crops that they had to deliver to the government at a certain price, any excess crops over that quota were sold to whoever wanted it in the most capitalistic fashion (i.e. no regulation at all). Sucked to be a doctor or a teacher because they had virtually no sidebusiness and lived of their very small government pay, others made bank selling the extra cigars they rolled or profited off the tourists who were deluded about life in Cuba and just gave five bucks everywhere out of sympathy, which brought a huge imbalance to the economy because people who got a job in the tourist industry became much more wealthier than others.

...

No it isn't and this proves you don't know the theoretical basis of anarchism or communism

Anarchy = stateless
Communism = in it's perfect form also stateless.

See revolutionary Catalonia for closest real example

oh no no no

Cuban American here, I go back every summer.

Central planning fucked up a lot, but it's going to get better soon.

The quota crop thing is backed by a yearly contest in which the winning province is given a huge celebration to host the 16 of July historical day.

>When your

No it doesn't work.

If all of the workers in the entire economy took over the means of production and got all of the profits from the firm, they will be forced to reinvest most of the profits anyway.
Lets say they reinvested some and took the rest of it and divided it among all of the workers and went to spend this money, it would just cause massive price increases and nobody would be better off.

It's a stupid ideology.

No, both ideologies are shit that never worked without extreme oppression.

>he unironically believes people won't use violence to protect their property
>he unironically believes anarchy would magically turn into DEMOCRACY
How the fuck does that work?

ancoms are fucking deluded

Neither has libertarian ideology either.

see pinoshit

>For the majority of human history, we've existed in AnCom collectives. The capitalist society of the last 3000 years is the anomaly.
This is absolute horseshit.
Throughout human history during times of anti-statism there have been currency, courts and property law.

>Catalonia
This place wasn't anarchist at all AHAHAHA
It was extremely statist and violent.

>Communism = in it's perfect form also stateless.

Personal and private property are completely different constructs

>Neither has libertarian ideology either.
What is the United States of America pre 1913?

>see pinoshit
Pinochet saved Chile and voluntary gave up power.
Chile now has the highest living standard in South America because they kept most of pinochet's policies.

It was completely under worker control.

The wiki article is a good summary if you need lad

Look into libertarian socialism OP

Sounds totally contradictory, but it’s the way to go

Fuck the banks, fuck your employer

>Personal and private property are completely different constructs

>commie faggot ACTUALLY UNIRONICALLY BELIEVES that people give a shit about his arbitrary property constructs that he just made up
Nobody is going to obey these made up constructs kid. Your religion is retarded

>It was completely under worker control.
Completely under statist control, dumbfuck.
There was no anarchism.

wtf is "anarcho-communism"

you cannot force "equality" without having a strong totalitarian commie state

fuck you commie

>sage btw

>asking about ancom on board centered around hyper capitalist nihilist computer coins
user I...

Lmfao what? Communism requires an absolute state goverbee through force in order to take and redistribute others belongings, anarchy is the lack of a state. In the case of anarchy it quickly turns into tribal communicalism and later feudalism. Then we're eventually back to merchant capitalism again as rulers lose their grip.

the state is replaced with a new version of the state

*governed

I honestly cannot wait until we get to murder every single communist/socialist on the planet.

They unironically want to be poverty ridden slaves and want to take everyone down to their level.

>Saved Chile

Someone needs to read pre pinoshit Chilean history.

>Still violently suppressed dissidenters
>Protected a literal Nazi pedophile and used his farm as a state sanctioned underage fuck palace
>Plunged the country into two steep recessions
>Enacted reforms hated by half the population

He was trash senpai

ancap is the ideal state of humanity, but not practical. minarchism is the practical ideal state of humanity.

They aren't arbitrary. Words have meanings lad.

Private property is anything that generates profit.

Personal property is defined by occupancy and use.

Come on now.

>Someone needs to read pre pinoshit Chilean history.
Yes. Chile is doing much better than those previous years.
Sorry about your anal asspain.

>>Still violently suppressed dissidenters
Yes, marxists. GOOD!!

>He was trash senpai
Meanwhile chile currently has the highest living standards in SA thanks to his policies which have mostly been kept.
kys desu

>libertarian-socialism
Pretty sure you guys just make this shit up as you go

Fun fact all private property is state property because you can not enforce private property without a state.

Ancapistan is a literal myth.

>They aren't arbitrary.
They are.
They were made up by some literally who ideologues.
Why do you expect everyone to abide by these totally unnatural property constructs?

>Private property is anything that generates profit.
>Personal property is defined by occupancy and use.
Yes, I know what your religion states.
If I hire someone in my home to start making textiles then I suddenly have private property?
What exactly does this have to do with property?
You people aren't anarchists at all, you're statists.

youtube.com/watch?v=rq8y-ejapjE

>Marxist

He didn't really discriminate he pretty much labeled anyone opposed to him a Marxist or anti government and killed them.

No need to be edgy

WHY IS THERE ANOTHER FUCKING POLITICS THREAD

WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE MODS

>you can not enforce private property without a state.
This is what leftarchists ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

>medieval ireland didn't exist
>medieval iceland didn't exist
>1800s american midwest didn't exist
>neutral moresnet didn't exist

Face it, all examples of anarcho socialism have been extreme statism.

Lucky for you I read about this ancient crap that no developed society in large numbers could put in practice without compromising its productivity back when I was in college.

Short answer it can work, if you kill a large portion of the current population and people magically change their expectations and standard of living.
Hunter gathering societies can put it to practice and it kind of naturally occurs but once complex processes of production start developing societies naturally shift from anarcho communism.
Large societies can’t possibly execute complex production processes under anarchy, that’s why we tend to form governing bodies to oversee the execution of said process.

If you ever worked in a complex company that gave independence to its employees you would know people tend to try to work less or slack off and the workload falls onto those who can’t slack off due to obligations they have to meet within the company, now without a governing head everyone would slack off and do what they feel like doing and it wouldn’t directly affect them for some time and everyone would try to work as little as possible because unlike a hunter gatherer society where you enjoy the fruit of ur work directly on a society that has developed complex processes of production you’re manufacturing for other people , while u benefit from it it doesn’t necessarily mean working harder one day benefits you to a greater degree.
It’s an over simplification but essentially did according to our capacity and received according to our needs while sharing the means of production people would greatly reduce their output and straight up neglect it in most cases.

aren't they like the opposite of each other?
yes i'm a brainlet

>you can not enforce private property without a state
hmm

There was always a body to enforce private property senpai weather it was nobility or otherwise.

Personal property is not private property.

>There was always a body to enforce private property
Yes.
Polycentric law.
Polycentric law isn't statism, it's anarchy.

>weather it was nobility or otherwise.
Totally wrong.

>Personal property is not private property.
Nobody cares about your made up constructs and people will kill you if you try to enforce them. You're the statist, you want to use violence to prevent people from voluntarily trading their labour.
Deal.

Why are you using capitalist constructs to define communist living conditions?

The scenario you provided doesn't even translate to communism.

The contractor would be part of a textile union or otherwise.

You can't use contrasting conditions when describing opposing ideologies.

>commies actually believe taking over the means of production will increase their living standards somehow
AHAHAHAHAHA

>Why are you using capitalist constructs to define communist living conditions?
How exactly am I doing this, you idiot?

>The scenario you provided doesn't even translate to communism.
Why and how?

>The contractor would be part of a textile union or otherwise.
So? What if he doesn't like the terms and conditions of the textile union and wants to work for me?

You brainlet.

Exactly.
If I will receive according to my need why would I work according to my ability? I would greatly reduce my ability to ensure I’m getting the most while doing the least posible.

btw unions are violent labour cartels that REQUIRE A STATE

Sorry my guy your 3 decade old ideology needs some work.

See Proudhoun. Self property = cool and good
Property of others or their labor bad and not good.

You can not enforce the concept of private property without some kind of backing force. It's literally impossible. Utilizing law also requires a state to back it up.

>humans have existed for the last 130,000 years
>first official currency minted ~3000 years ago, first rule of law ~5000 years ago
>"Throughout human history during times of anti-statism there have been currency, courts and property law."

What did he mean by this?

...

this is what happens when the politics board get hijacked by literal children that wont stop sperging about women niggers and immigrations in the most superficial and inane way possible

Ethereum is anarcho communism

The fact that marx wanted to "abolish" money always butters my roll. It makes me question the whole "marx was a genius!" idea. Did marx really think MONEY had value as anything other than a medium of exchange? It's like if you saw a bunch of people driving black Cadillac and you thought "WE NEED TO BAN THE COLOR BLACK". It doesn't make any fucking sense.

>Sorry my guy your 3 decade old ideology needs some work.
Your ideology has been debunked a million times yet people keep falling for it.
Go away gramps.
Also my ideology is at least 120 years old at this point.

>See Proudhoun.
TOP KEK
Isn't that the guy that got totally BTFO by based Bastiat in a debate?
What a loser.

>Property of others or their labor bad and not good.
You're just saying good and bad.
Why do you think it's good and bad.
Also if there is no state how do you think you can enforce your stupid morality on people.
People will naturally use currency and trade their labour for money in anarchism.

>You can not enforce the concept of private property without some kind of backing force.
Everything is force stupid. You can't enforce your concept of PERSONAL property without a backing force. You can't enforce your concept of destroying private property without a backing force.
Even anarchism has laws, dummy.

>Utilizing law also requires a state to back it up.
This is why ancoms are literal brainlets.
You don't even know what polycentric law is or was. You don't need a state for laws.

If you're talking about literal tribes of humans, sure, but that's literal poverty.
When agriculture came around, and human brains grew, we developed property, courts, and currency all without states.

yes, the only way it can happen is when tech fills the role of the government making it a voluntary, free and democratic service via crypto

Marx was a brainlet.

how the fuck would you provide goods and services, most people won't work for pure enthusiasm, people are fucking lazy

Why do ancoms always get exposed for the filthy hypocritical statists they are?

>I WANT TO ABOLISH THE STATE
>WE NEED VIOLENTLY ENFORCED DEMOCRATICALLY RUN WORKPLACES
>ALSO BAN PRIVATE PROPERTY
>ALSO BAN HATE SPEECH

why do you need the goods of services of lesser men?

remove the word democratic and you would be correct
fuck democracy

Short answer: no
Long answer: for this to work, requires unlimited resources and zero crime. It is the ultimate goal for humanity however don’t bother thinking about it, will not happen in a million year.

>Still violently suppressed dissidenters
False we LITERALY have a socialist president right now.
>Protected a literal Nazi pedophile and used his farm as a state sanctioned underage fuck palace
Meh
>Plunged the country into two steep recessions
Can't grow for ever. Till better after than before.
>Enacted reforms hated by half the population
False, and who cares about fucking comies anyway?

democracy is the least retarded way of governing, (i mean a direct democracy not this representative shit) because you have the most checks against retarded decisions

remember when kings took all the value of a state and gambled it on a quick war every 5 years? The more democratic the less initiative there is for war..

Based Chilean.

I prefer a republic with an extremely detailed and complex constitution and for democracy to be harshly limited.

not saying he was perfect but nah, he mainly killed marxists. He was necessary to prevent another cuba from forming. The results today speak for themselves.
also he later voluntarily gave up power

no

republics are just one layer of corruption above plutocracy

>non-brainlet answer

It would work in a post-scarcity society, if society developed to the point that an individual had access to any resource and use of that resource would not impact anyone else there would be no reason to have the infrastructure (ie. the state) to organise or limit it, so there goes the anarchy part.

If you have infinite resources and everyone has the same access to them and as they are infinite people have no means or reason to limit them for other people, you have effective communism.

Now, since both these scenarios rely on something completely utopian and unrealistic the whole concept needs to be dropped and delusional hippies beaten. This is the real world so let's be practical.

Some anarchocapitalists might argue that we should change our demand for resources but the whole ideology crumbles if anyone needs to be compelled to make any decision at any point.

ok for example i have cancer, who the fuck will run the hospitals, or who will do the tumor removal, who will do the tests, who will listen to their patients ... etc, "oh man you just don't get it, they will work voluntarily, not for the profit, just for compassion" that's fucking absurd... 65% of population will be just fucking lazy, out of 35% who will work, half of them will probably get bored, i mean what's stopping my surgeon leaving me in middle of surgery, "other people" here is where your voluntarism falls apart, it will just degrade into collective authoritarianism, (like catalonia) you can't run a civilized and advanced society like that, most people aren't compassionate, hard working or enthusiastic, it's completely goes against human nature, people are mostly selfish

>no concept of wealth
>free land, game and gatherable food as far as the eye can see (depending on region)
>debt, income, class doesn't exist
>"That's literal poverty"
???

No, democracy always leads to corruption.
At least republics put strict limits on the corruption.

No, communism and every other type of socialism requires a government in order to function and to control the economy and redistribute wealth

>>no concept of wealth
Yes they did.
Having a good hunt and food at the end wasn't wealth?

>>"That's literal poverty"
It was literal poverty though. People had almost nothing compared to today and had to work most of the time to gather food and shelter to survive.

There's nothing that wrong with Cuba lad. People are poor but are taken care of.

I go back every summer. As I mentioned in this thread.

Big dick daddy fidel still managed to expunge all the capitalists tho so gotta give my president some respect

>There's nothing that wrong with Cuba lad
KEK
Cuba is a shithole compared to economically freer countries.
Cuba is a LITERAL shithole compared to Chile for example.

Why the fuck do you think people risk their lives every year to escape it?

>I go back every summer.
As a tourist, with your highly valued USD. LOL

>Big dick daddy fidel still managed to expunge all the capitalists tho so gotta give my president some respect
LOL yeah he threw all of the people actually increasing your living standards out of the country and inserted his tiny dick into your ass which you gratefully accept.
What a bootlicker you are.
kill yourself poverty lover.

btw Switzerland is one of the most capitalist countries on earth. Compare that to one of the least capitalist countries CUBA.

>tients ... etc, "oh man you just don't get it, they will work voluntarily, not for the profit, just for compassion" that's fucking absurd... 65% of population will be just fucking lazy, out of 35% who will work, half of them will probably get bored, i mean what's stopping my surgeon leaving me in middle of surgery, "other people" here is where your voluntarism falls apart, it will just degrade into collective authoritarianism, (like catalonia) you can't run a civilized and advanced society like that, most people aren't compassionate, hard working or enthusiastic, it's completely goes against human nature, people are mostly selfish

how many % do you think are now working on something that has value? opposed to just work for the sake of work

nobody works for sake of work

Well easiest example at socialism vs capitalism is Koreas. One went with socialism other one went with capitalism. 60 years later you can see the difference.

Hunter gatherers worked about 15-20 hours a week and had far more leisure time than modern humans.

>"Having a good hunt and food at the end wasn't wealth?"

You can't hoard meat since there is no refrigeration, and there's no reason to since it's basically everywhere for free. So no, it was not wealth as we consider it today

>"People had almost nothing compared to today"

>muh iphone
>muh tv

People had literally everything. Dominion over the land and sea, free food, close, tight knit communities, no central bankers forcing them into wage slavery.

>"who the fuck will run the hospitals, or who will do the tumor removal, who will do the tests, who will listen to their patients"

People better than you user. Not everyone is a selfish lazy piece of shit that just wants to get paid to do nothing.

He might be wagecuck, but youre stonecuck...

get the fuck in here and make some money user fuck this conversation bullshit

>"I would work less to get more"
sounds like capitalism

>Hunter gatherers worked about 15-20 hours a week and had far more leisure time than modern humans.
kek holy shit you're one of those delusional anarcho-primatvists

>15-20 hours a week
bullshit lmao

You are aware you could go RIGHT NOW live in the forest as a hunter gatherer and NOBODY is stopping you from doing this?
Please throw your computer away right now and see how "easy" it is, you fucking brainlet.
You won't because you're a hypocrite.

>People had literally everything
HAHAHAHAHA
>no medicine
>no technology
>only entertainment was a fire at night

>free food
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>See revolutionary Catalonia for closest real example

I see it as an example of what not to do, anarchists were killing each other to gain power.

I think you mean central banking.

Capitalism, as in a FREE MARKET would solve these issues and living standards would rise over time like they used to.

>anarchists were killing each other to gain power.
This, they were trying to control THE STATE.
It wasn't even close to real anarchism.
Socialists are absolute brainlets.

why does everybody on this board always complain about wagecucks, but then shit on the only possible solution to wagecuckery

no and kys

Will people still go to medical school for 8 years if the benefits of their career are no better than those of a janitor? Will they take on the intense stress and risk of being a surgeon if they will not be compensated for that?

clever rebranding there, super-capitalism... I like it