Essential anarchist fiction

I just said it was fucking retarded
judging by the books in the OP this is a bait thread anyway

Anarchism is basically laissez faire capitalism, there's no difference.

Is individualist anarchism considered real anarchism? If so, then I would say Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard and No Treason by Lysander Spooner are good reads.

Evasion

This. take that statist scum. Deus Vult!

I define anarchism as x. Your "anarchism" does not fit my definition, therefore you are not an anarchist.

Well actually, anarchism is y, which invalidates your claim of being an anarchist.

Anarchism has always been about x, have you even read Person 1?

Yes, but Person 2 has shown that to be false.

Typical of a y anarchist to bring up Person 2. You're nothing but a crypto-A.

Now you're just name calling. I wouldn't expect anything less from a crypto-B.

that sounds about right
if anarchism actually existed (and it literally never will so find a new ideology) it would be the strong ruling the weak

in practice a-cap will not result in the jeffersonian yeoman farmer fantasy + legal weed utopia libertarians envision but in a neo-feudal system in which a small elite (tech/security cartels and landholders) is allowed unprecedented control over the masses. Hans Hermann Hope (among other Austrian School/ A-cap ideologues) basically admits as much. It's Bourgeoisie Liberal proprietarianism taken to its natural and paradoxical conclusion.

yes I agree with that
anarcho communism will lead to the exact same thing

Will all the fucking /pol/tards, Stormfags, Randroids, Ayn-caps, and other assorted fungus please fuck off? Unless you want to suggest some actual anarchist fiction, then GTFO.

see

it's not a serious ideology I don't know why you expect a serious thread

Communism is a theoretical ideal. If anything our current state-based system is obsolescing quickly. I think most people would agree that direct democracy, descentralisation and mutual/communal ownership of the means of production are preferable to the spooky property-fetishism surveillance/control system capitalism could soon become.

The reason anarcho-capitalism is gaining in popularity while the communist or socialist forms are stagnating is because the latter all sound like you-- whiny. Sad!

yeah except there's no serious Exit thought going on within the left because they're still addicted to universalism

No, anarchism is a society with hierarchies, the only economic system that would work with it and still be anarchistic is communism

Anarchism has existed, look at the Ukrainian Free Territory, the spanish revolution, even the Zapitistas and the Kurds in Rojava are influenced by anarchism.

anarchism is a society without a state, it has nothing to do with hierarchies
>b-but Bakunin said
reality doesn't care

>existed
key word

Anarchism has always been to do with hierachies, its only Ancaps who just take the dictionary definition of anarchism and ignore the all literature who believe it is only the state that needs to go.

see:

You implied it had never existed, which it obviously has and again the Kurdish struggle in Syria is influenced by Murray Bookchin, who was an anarchist. Their social and political structure are deeply anti-authoritarian.

I implied that it can't exist
a system that fails to reproduce itself isn't a serious system
how long do you think the Kurds have left?

"Anarcho-capitalism" is just an economic theory that a monopoly on the production of law is inefficient and immoral and should be subject to market competition, it just boils down to a utilitarian efficiency issue and (im)moral critique. Things would still be governed (by market forces) but it would be more efficient governance.

Real anarchism would outright reject the positive economics/sociology/morals of Jews like Murray Rothbard. "Anarcho-capitalism" is actually just Judaic egoism in its pure materialist form.

>"Anarcho-capitalism" is actually just Judaic egoism in its pure materialist form.

First of all the reason anarchism has failed in the past isn't in a lack of ability to reproduce itself, it has been due to losing militarily against the soviets and fascist Spain. In Spain it was due to infighting with different groups on the left, which is a problem that the left has in general. Also I mean the Kurds are winning battles against ISIS, the issue is what happens if ISIS are defeated. If they stay autonomous and have their own state and western military forces move out, they more than likely will have an issue with Turkey who doesn't want them to exist. Which would likely cause an extension of Turkeys fight against the PKK, to one with the YPG/YPJ aswell.

Isn't anarchism just no-government?

>it has been due to losing militarily against the soviets and fascist Spain.
meaning it failed to reproduce itself because it couldn't deal with external threats

Not really, the original anarchist thinkers were all socialists and wanted an end to both the state and capitalism, seeing the hierarchies in both to be negative.

You know Marx was a Jew too. They have control jave both sides..

Yeah but Marx didn't claim to be an anarchist.

There are no hierarchies in capitalism. Socialists are mere useful idiots ushering in the nwo and their own quick deaths.

I was referring to socialism...

Jefferson is proto Marxist, we don't want that. Statist/socialist forced indoctrination, otherwise known as school, have created generations of morons welcoming their own enslavement with open arms.

Capitalist society has rigid social classes; if you'd read Marx, you'd understand that. Class is a hierarchy. The rich quite obviously have more power than than the poor. Corporations are built with hierarchies, where CEOs and Directors have more say in what a company does than the workers.

The classic anarchist "If you'd read Authority X, surely you'd see that I am right."

Now wait for the opposing anarchist to refer to Authority Y who disagrees with Authority X.

>THIS ENTIRE THREAD

This.

>not just rejecting any and all self-declared authority, considering all claims in themselves and judging them by their own merits, rejecting private property because it's a spook, and the state for the same reason and because it attempts to control you, without rigidly, dogmatically adhering to communism either
You'll Cowards Don't Even Read Stirner

>I know! I know and understand: my ideas — which are not new — might wound the overly sensitive hearts of modern humanists, who proliferate in great abundance among subversives, and of romantic dreamers of a radiant, redeemed and perfect humanity, dancing in an enchanted realm of general, collective happiness to the music of a magic flute of endless peace and universal brotherhood. But anyone who chases phantoms wanders far from the truth, and then it is known that the first to be burnt in the flames of my corroding thought was my inner being, my true self! Now within the burning blaze of my Ideas, I also become a flame, and I burn, I scorch, I corrode...

>Only those who enjoy contemplating seething volcanoes that launch sinister, exploding lava from their fiery wombs toward the stars, later letting them fall into the Void or among Dead Cities of cowardly men, my carrion brothers, making them run in frantic flight out from their moldy wall-papered shacks, hellholes of rancid, old ideals, should approach me.

The ideal of an utopia of independent farmers and craftsmen is still very much a part of the right libertarian imaginary. Too bad the market as it exists today tends toward industrial cartels, mass media-driven psychological engineering and collusion with a brutal security apparatus. The way I see it, there's always going to be a Government of sorts- ie a system dedicated to resolving disputes and distributing resources- so why not make it fully accountable and democratic? imo left-anarchism is closer to the ideal of freedom than a system based on unrestricted property-as-power.

What is government? Government isn't just a synonym for state as if abolishing a state eliminates government as the narrowness of some crypto-utilitarians lead them to believe. No government means no laws of any sort be they legal, moral, natural/social science, etc... it means consonantly changing the fabric of the universe.

Jefferson was actually more of a Maoist than a orthodox Marxist.
Force and indoctrination isn't avoidable and we probably need a lot more of it not less. If you abolish schools you're just left with families which might be more utilitarian/economical/romantic but equally forceful.

Class or hierarchy isn't problematic in itself laws are. Most people actually like hierarchy.

Completely ignoring the title of this thread, here's some Anarchist non-fiction:

An Anarchist FAQ
Introduction to Anarchism Communism
Anarcho communism - an introduction
Anacho-syndicalism - an introduction

Alexander Berkman:
Alexander Berkman, 1870-1936 - biography
What is Anarchism?
Prison memoirs of an anarchist
The Russian Tragedy
The Bolshevik Myth
The Kronstadt Rebellion

Mikhail Bakunin:
Mikhail Bakunin, 1814-1876 - Biography
Basic Bakunin - Anarchism Federation
Marxism, Freedom and The State
God and The State
The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State
A Critique of teh German Social Democratic Program

Pierre Proudhon:
What is Property?
The Philosophy of Poverty
The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century
The Principle of Federation

Peter Kropotkin:
The Conquest of Bread
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Fields, Factories, and Workshops
Anarchism; & Anarchism Communism
Memoirs of a Revolutionist
The State - Its Historic Role
Act for Yourselves: Articles from Freedom 1886-1907

Errico Malatesta:
Errico Malatesta, 1853-1932 - Biography
Anarchy
Anarchism and Organisation
Syndicalism and Anarchism
At The Cafe

Emma Goldman:
Emma Goldman, 1869-1940 - Biography
Anarchism and Other Essays
Living My LIfe, 2 Vols
My Disillusionment in Russia

Rudolf Rocker:
Rudolf Rocker, 1873-1958 - Biography
Anarcho-syndicalism
Anarchism and Anarcho-syndicalism
Nationalism and Culture
The Tragedy of Spain
The Truth About Spain

Nestor Makhno:
Nestor Makhno, 1889-1934 - Biography
The Struggle Against The State And Other Essays
Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists

Daniel Guerin:
Daniel Guerin, 1904-1988 - Biography
No Gods, No Masters: An Anthology of Anarchism
Anarchism: From Theory to Practice

Albert Meltzer:
Albert Meltzer, 1920-1996 - Biography
I couldn't paint golden angels: Sixty years of commonplace life and anarchist agitation
Anarchism: Arguments For and Against
The Floodgates of Anarchy

Murray Bookchin:
Bookchin Remembered
Social Anarchism of Lifestyle Anarchism
Listen, Marxist!
Post-Scarcity Anarchism
Anarchism, Marxism and The Future of The Left
The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936

Which can all be found:

theanarchistlibrary.org/
zinelibrary.info/
marxists.org/ebooks/index.htm
marxists.org/txtindex.htm
qzap.org/
prole.info/
prole.info/onlinetexts.html
libcom.org/library

I just can't stomach complete anarchy as a belief system.
I belive in a system.Of course this system I belive in changes by the minute,but still,a structure is there.
Stirner developed more of a personal belief system so that is cool

Most people like hierarchy? I don't think I know anyone who likes or trusts politicians, or likes the owners of the companies they work for. Just because you're a cuck, who likes being told what to do doesn't mean everyone else is.

Most anarchists aren't opposed to structures existing per se; they just want the system to be one in which people cooperate and aren't forced to participate, through the actions of others or through the withholding of resources they need to survive. Essentially, anarchism is about the maximization of personal freedom through the creation of a situation in which everyone has what they need, and in which nobody is above anyone else in any kind of rigid way.

This is compatible with Stirner's egoism, by the way, but only if you are a Stirnerite who happens to want to live in the above society yourself.

I am.

Ive read Marx and i disagree completely. LTV and "unproductive labor" are categorically false premises.

So it's essentially a decentralized minimalistic communism?(on a local level)

I just realized this kind of replies are both an insult and actual advice at the same time since /r/ is now a thing.

Basically, yeah. Mutualism falls in there somewhere, too, but is a bit less popular, albeit probably more in line with most egoists' ideas.

Basically mutualism is like capitalism minus the capitalists (replace top-down businesses with worker cooperatives) and minus land ownership (if you don't use it or live on it, and it's just sitting there empty, you don't own it).

Yeah basically, it is a decentralized communism, but there is ideas on how to make it work on a larger scale with things like federations

You are going to get fucked anyways, it's innevitable, law of the jungle out there. I would rather serve a natural aristocrat than get cucked by some random ass dindu. Are you seriously thinking the lower races aren't going to go on a massive looting/rape spree as soon as the cops are off the streets? Cooperation my ass, this is a dog eat dog world.

The Oaxacan communes, the Rojava territory and plenty of small religious, decentralized communes still exist all around the world, you just have to look for it.

>the only problem of anarchism is non-anarchists

I love this thing americans do, like "a piece of shit smeared across a fryer, otherwise known as PANCAKES", it justs sounds like Spurdo trying to prove his point by poorly appealing to surreal analogies

Well, Stirner was a stirnerite aiming for a similar society, so, you know.

Jefferson wanted everyone to be dirt farmers waging endless revolution. Yea thats why we want a statless free markets. Property is labor, of course those that actually do stuff should be in power, but only over themselves.

Technically not fiction, but the guy literally killed people to make you read this, so at least give it a shot: cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt

Songs of Innocence and of Experience

Honestly for real Good Omens and V for Vendetta can just be skipped if you dont want to read them for fun.

Anarchist is basically Reddit: The Ideology
>utilitarian
lol

So you do believe in the labor theory of value but only when said labor is associated with property? Weird. And whose labor? Does land belong to the landowner or to the laborers who work his fields? Historically, property has been acquired through conquest and preserved through the threat of force, it can also be sold and inherited which means its relation to labor is hardly as direct as you seem to imply.

Relative theory of value andlabor as tge origin of property. The landowner is whoever created the farm in the first play. Inheritance is no different than any other gift, though I would hope people would man up and stop giving their life's work to spoiled brats.

This whole thread is why no one likes or respects Ayn-caps: pushy, obnoxious, stupid, and full of Dunning-Kruger bravado.

The leftists here, including you, are the ones being obnoxious. OP started it.

>(Please don't post any Ayn Rand crap here. There is no such thing as "anarcho-capitalism." Capitalism is classist, and anarchism has no social classes by definition.)
>ayn rand was an anarchist
>capitalism is classist
good spooks my property

Capitalism relies on spooks such as "the property owners actually own that shit" too.

Steal what you want. Fuck the rich.

So now all property owners are rich? The vast majority of landowners are poor.

Not the guy you are replying to but you are really ignorant. How does land gain value? The rent you can extract from it. What creates rent? Labour. The difference the return from capital ie profit and what accrues to you as landowner is rent, if you both own the land and own the capital on the land then profit and rent are both paid to you. The rent of land depends on productivity of labour. The least productive land produces the least amount of rent because there is a smaller difference between profit and rent. This is the Ricardian idea refined by Marx and made into and ideology by Henry George. A very interesting. Ideology. He says the tensions in society are not labour and capital but labour and capital against landowners. Land has no value unless it can be used to produce commodities through labour

That's funny because Ayn Rand is not an anarchist in the slightest, she's one of the shittiest "libertarian" philosophers along with Robert Nozick, so it really shows that you have no clue of what you're talking about. If you want anarchist fiction you can check any academic literature on left-anarchy (anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, and so on) since it relies only on "muh feels" regarding hierarchies, which have nothing to do with how agents own means of production (which is a largely missused concept, specially as technological progress comes), but how society itself is formed regarding jurisdiction and family-structuring. Being against hierarchies itself just because of "muh equality" is too much wishful thinking for supposed empirical, materialistic theories. True anarcho-capitalism, which is based on universal logical ethics and not utilitarianism, is truly different from other kinds of anarchy, because it's the only one that doesn't rely on ideological arbitrarities. Private property isn't a metaphysical opressive entity, it's just a necessary rule for conflict-solving.

yeah, I'm not really an ancap, I just find it weird when people say "capitalism is x" when x is something other than "an economic system by which the means of production is owned privately". Capitalism may lead to some of these things under certain circumstances, I suppose, but that doesn't really mean it is those things.

Fabric of the cosmos - brian greene

>There are no hierarchies in capitalism

Adding to that, hierarchies, unlike government, are truly spontaneous structures, that even with initiation of force, either by structured states or communist-like unions in a supposed communistic society, cannot logically disappear.

>universal logical ethics
>hoppean argumentation ethics. Le By talking to me you are actually accepting libertarianism

Holy shit, I can see why nobody likes you people. It should be noted Mr Hoppe happens to be a reactionary enamored by spooky ideas of monarchy and the natural order

I'm not talking about hoppean argumentation ethics, although it is a very helpful tool to point out performative contradictions. If one has a valid claim onto someone else, the validity of such claim is necessarily arbitrary (aryans over jews, whites over blacks, workers over bourgeois, state over citizens, progressives over conservatives, and so on), so the only non-arbitrary rule for resolving conflict is that nobody has a claim to coerce a pacific other. Anarcho-communists do not even have an ethical premise, it's all about "muh feels" and a hard-on for the concept of means of production, which magically can't be owned privately unlike personal property. Accept that you are a joke and go back to jerking yourself to videos of Chomsky crying about marketing imperialism.

Adding to this, the only valid criticism to anarcho-capitalism is stirnerism by rejecting ethics and morality by the whole.

>the only valid criticism to anarcho-capitalism is stirnerism
lol no

Go on, kiddo.

>kiddo
I'm older than you.

Any rejection of property or subjective morality works

Define an non-contradictory, valid concept of violence without using the concept of property. Rule of property is resolution of conflict itself, because conflict only exists on behalf of scarcity. Any communistic anarchism also uses the concept of property, it's just that the property of arbitrary object x (means of productions) are forcibly owned collectively. It is still property. If you reject property all-along then you don't have communism, you have no ethical framework at all. Also, morality and ethics are different things. Now kill yourself kiddo.

Adding again, if not for universal ethics (rules for conflict resolution) you just have the rule of the strongest.

>violence is bad because i dont like it
Then the brat tells me to kill myself.

Confirmed troll; ignore him.

>someone questioned muh ideology that means they need to die ;c

If initiation of force against pacific beings is valid, what non-arbitrary rules do you have for initiating such force?
>muh left-anarchy is valid because of muh feels
Keep going old man.

The jig is up, stop trying.

What I've learned from you: I have a claim to someone else's property because my feels are hurt when x has more property than y.

Like all deontological universalist ethics, you end up falling on spooky metaphysical claims (ironically, muh feels and intuition). Much like Kant's categorical imperative bears a suspicious resemblance to 18th century bourgeoisie mores, the Austrians came to the conclusion that private property was the ultimate good and then set out to build a system to justify it. It relies on equivocation between a platonic plane of rational discourse and the actual world dominated by force and necessity. Claim a city's only water source, charge exhorbitant fares to the starving population and when they come knocking on your door it's your right to shoot them cause they are the ones initiating violence or whatever. People have no reason to adhere to your arbitrary set of universalist ethics specially when it condemns them to starvation or de facto slavery.

Sweetie, the jig is up; you can stop projecting your ancom boogieman onto me and go back to /b/ or dubchan or whereever you illiterates come from.

>Rule of property is resolution of conflict itself, because conflict only exists on behalf of scarcity.

You're implying conflict didn't exist before the emergence of property forms. Conflict is rooted in psychological processes that go much deeper than simple "scarcity".

Property as an institution is just a legal construct that emerged due to its utility for society but eventually what was once useful becomes a burden and parasitic. Property as an institution is becoming more and more just about rent extraction and legally transferring from creators towards passive stock-holders and speculators.

What you want to call those social structures which existed before the development of those legal construct which property rests upon I dunno

this would be valid if ancoms didn't say the exact same shit