/pol/ - Politically Incorrect


[Return] [Go to Bottom] [Catalog]

File: based.png (1.82 KB, 119x119, 1:1, 1571357831962.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

 No.491[Last 50 Posts][D]

Anarchism on /pol/: General. Talk, do shit, ask us about anarchism, talk about anarchism.

No "An"-Caps allowed


Where are you guys even coming from? Are you new here?


>Are you new here?


adding on to last post, just know that there's different ideologies that are considered "politically incorrect", and we're one of them


File: emma.jpeg (261.53 KB, 879x1236, 293:412, 1571358543259.jpeg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

who's your anarchist waifu/husbando, go


makhno or kropotkin, would say stirner but he's a furry


stirner seems like he'd be rather selfish in bed, and best girl is emma goldman


fair, but he exerts power over his property


Noam Chomsky


Anarchism as in Left wing anti goverment antifa edgelords?
anarchism as in right wing we will not conform to socilist nutjobs?
Or "alt right burn the jews blackies go backies anarchism?


chomsky is a pseudo-anarchist in all honesty


we believe in direct democracy, food for all, and everyone being considered equal, what qualifies us as edgelords? the fact that some of us make molotov jokes? what the fuck qualifies edginess in your eyes


have you ever considered that there might be slight competetion to your ideology on this board? the extreme right isn't the only politically incorrect ideology


first one, although you portray an obvious misunderstanding of anarchism. i'd suggest watching non-compete or reading the conquest of bread to learn more if you feel like being open minded


i'm oversimplifiying it dumbass



non-compete is "left unity" trash. "Left unity" is a scam, there can be no unity between anarchists and authcoms https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-tankies-and-the-left-unity-scam


hey bro, i wasn't talking about his left unity stuff (i haven't watched much), i just thought he gave a good outline in his "how would anarchism work" series which is why i recommended him


>gets defensive as soon as edginess is mentioned
Says a lot about your conviction. Just embrace it, d00d.
not until you walked in. We're not looking to become a political hotspot here, you're best off moving on if you're looking for a stronghold.


Heres my question.
No political philosophy is perfect.
No matter how anyone trys to valadate it.
What are the bad sides to anarchy?
The worst thing you can do is get angry.
It's just a question...


>blackies go backies


the duality of man


in an anarchist society, you need to start on a very small scale. the communes would end up with no more than 10,000 people in them, but in a case like that, any amount of communes could join together in a union.

(just for context this is under anarcho-communism)>>523


Anarchism is faggot shit.
Let's use 22chan as an example.
Dubschan is regarded as one of the strictest altchans out there and also regarded as one of the best and comfiest.
This is achieved with rules and their enforcement, all governed by the Fuhrer-Twoot. In comparison, look at how shit spacchan is with their shit rules and moderation.
>inb4 b-but anarchists have rule-enforcers aka police too
Yes, but even the police has a hierarchy and on irl anarchism that would quickly turn into a rule of a militaristic junta. Don't try to bullshit me that a utopian theory (just like gommunism) would work and there wouldn't be an inner struggle of power.
Also, someone said it earlier-leftist unity is a complete farce, just remember the Spanish civil war, where Franco was fighting against Republican commies and Anarchists, who were fucking fighting eachother at the same time.
Time has shown that most leftists are normalniggers, and seeing your previous "anarchist bread" thread with normalfag instagram memes and shit terms like "yeet", the point has once again been proved.
Piss off. Body bags for antifafags.


>Anarchism is faggot shit.
Totally dude, we love being gay and doing crime

We have hierarchies too dipshit, except its all voluntary. No state holds a gun to our head in the form of cops, and no bosses to make our lives hell, because workers can manage themselves without capitalist overlords. We follow people we want to follow, not because someone told us to


>Dubschan is regarded as one of the strictest altchans out there and also regarded as one of the best and comfiest.
Post one (1) comment from 4chan or some altchan that wasnt written by you saying this


guys guys guys, can we all at least agree that israel is shit?


Yes, the settler state must be destroyed.



Anarchy is the struggle against power. Anarchist police is oxymoronic, as police are an instrument of power.

Anarchy is more of a process than a goal - the process of dismantling authoritarian relationships, opposing powerful interests and building anti-authoritarian relationships in its place.

Anarchy has existed as long as there have been those struggling to exercise power over others, and it will continue to exist as long as domination exists.


>i-its voluntary so it's not tyranny


>We have hierarchies too dipshit
Anarchy does not involve so-called "voluntary" hierarchies what the fuck kind of bullshit is that? I swear anarcho-chomskyists have done more to ruin anarchy and render it a useless meme than the state. Though it wouldn't surprise me if the global ruling classes that control the state were actually involved in diluting anarchy to be honest.

Freedom to choose your own rulers is no freedom at all.


Police aren't the bad guys, at least not in america.
Elsewhere, in police state hong kong, yes they are. They need anarchy. Or at least some type of help.


the police wouldn't be rulers, they'd be just another member of the commune that could have that power taken away at any time, and what power they do get would be very limited and fleeting seeing as though the police would be a rotating position. your position is the equivalent of "there's no difference between rape and consensual sex because there's a someone on top"


What the hell is tyranny to you? When you can't say the n-word? Anarchism seeks to end the systems that allow for wide-spread tyranny in the first place, the state and capitalism. A commune or union that has power hungry bastards on its council can just strip them of their position and elect someone else, it's not like they'll be allowed enough power to stop the people in first place


>Police aren't the bad guys, at least not in america.
Okay Boomer




File: Super Monkey Ball Jr. (E)(….png (34.95 KB, 240x160, 3:2, 1571407976461.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]


Nice try, kiddo, next time leave your shitty terms at Reddit.


We acknowledge that some hierarchies occur naturally, because one might have more force of personality than others, there is nothing you can really do about that. But hierarchy that is unearned and enforced is unjust, e.g a trust fund baby being given a cushy managerial job, or the supreme court, who are supposed to hold 1/3 of the power in the US, being appointed for a possible life long term, and the regular citizen can't do a damn thing about it without the cops chucking tear gas at them


>does not involve "voluntary" heirarchies
do you even know anything about anarchism other than "NO HEIRARCHIES GUYS"


Capitalism isn't Inherently evil.
Same thing with socialism.


>shut up boomer
Again with the instagram teir memery?


>more force of personality
what the fuck does that even mean. Hierarchy involves a system of relationships of power. A hierarchical relationship is a relationship of domination and subordination - about a ruler's right to command and a follower's duty to obey, enforced through coercive means. There's no such thing as "earning" ones position in a hierarchy. Who decides the criteria for "earning" shit? Whoever does is the authority here - the one with the power. And they're gonna use that power to define "earning" to be "doing things that benefit me at others expense"

>natural hierarchy

lmao, what's this? anarcho-conservatism?

Please stop diluting anarchy. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-anarchy-vs-archy-no-justified-authority


What are you doing in america to get a gas can thrown at you?


>do you even know anything about anarchism other than "NO HEIRARCHIES GUYS"

yes. I am an anarchist. I am not a minarchist. An-archy does not mean hier-archy. No so-called "voluntary" hierarchy will stay voluntary for long. Authority never dissolves itself.

To be fair though, I did believe in the "justified hierarchy" meme a long time ago but I gradually realized what a ridiculous position that was


>I'm gay, so my anal trauma is not actually a dangerous injury.


ok, so how do you propose we achieve full anarchy without something enforcing what little laws we'd have on the commune? if there's a feasible solution, i'm all ears.


Anarcho egoism is the only true form of anarchy. You fuckers seriously let your surroundings and the native political climate affect you? How's it feel being irreparably weak-willed?


anarchy =/= anarchism


the problem is not with capitalism itself, but rather a collusion between private enterprise and government.


OP what school of anarchy do you believe in?


>the problem is not with capitalism itself
ah yes, i also support corporations letting people starve on the streets because they don't have money


Two questions,
what happens when two people disagree about something like responsibility for damage to persons or property of another?
Who takes care of public infrastructure?
Pretty much the only questions i have so far.


(i'm an ancom so this is from my perspective)
Q1: under anarchism, there is still a system of law and this situation would probably go to the ward (the way that communes are organized, they also have a committee) for democratic decision.
Q2: The commune takes care of public infrastructure, and can get help from other communes via mutual aid contract.
I would recommend watching the noncompete video series on what anarchism is, the videos are pretty high quality, and it's not reading conquest of bread.


This will produce a state. A system of law requires authority - authority will always expand and perpetuate itself. Before you know it it'll be back to square one, just as with the american revolution.

I don't usually specify anything beyond "anarchist" but if I had to I'd say I'm closer to post-leftist tendencies than anything. A black flag anarchist, as opposed to a red anarchist.


oh boy, you guys are THAT kind of anarchist.


>what happens when two people disagree about something like responsibility for damage to persons or property of another?
It depends on the context of the situation and community involved. Some say this is too vague and therefore a weakness on the part of anarchism but honestly I think it's a strength that it doesn't try to force any one-size-fits-all solutions. Any "how would anarchism deal with X situation" often misses the point, honestly. We're not about prescribing a dogmatic way of life for people to rigidly adhere to. We offer guidelines such as mutual aid, cooperation and restorative justice - but anyone offering an exact blueprint is going to end up an authoritarian in their attempts to bring their specific vision of the world about.


>ah yes, i also support corporations letting people starve on the streets because they don't have money
Yes i the spoopy capitalist scum like stomping on the weak because only the stronk survive
Jesus man, you need to calm down.
Also this thread was labled "Anarchy General" and yet you state
No "An"-Caps allowed,
Why do you even call it anarchy general?


ancaps aren't anarchists and have nothing to do with the rest of the anarchist movement. Anarchy is anti-capitalist. My post-left ass disagrees a lot with these red anarchists in here as should be apparent, but this is one of the few things we can agree on.


Anarchy isn't against anything except authority. It does not fight against suffering or unfairness or anything like that. Anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of anarchy.


There's a reason some people don't have money and have to starve.
It's because those people are lazy niggers who don't want to work and if they don't work, they get my fucking tax money as govt. welfare. I work 10 hours a day and for some reason i have to pay some lazy piece of nigger trash for drinking liquor all day and not doing jack shit.
"If we killed all the poor, there would be no communists."


THIS is the spirit of anarchy. Fuck the government, it doesn't know what's best for anyone.


as long as you're not an ancap you can chill here


Make sure that the people on welfare use it responsibly. I agree with that.
People misuse social services all the time.


We're not fighting against suffering or unfairness, we're fighting against the corporations literally not feeding people on the streets because of money, which is an unjust hierarchy.


File: 1488.jpg (28.3 KB, 250x242, 125:121, 1571426981428.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>spirit of anarchy
You missed it by a longshot. I don't agree with the CURRENT govt. and their nigger democracy and civil rights shit.
What i've noticed is that it's mostly niggers, gypsies and other subhuman scum who do fuck nothing all day and receive welfare.
Cutting down a good part of those will also cut down a big part of budget spending on those nigs.
Authoritarianism is the way to go.
I don't give a shit about some shitskins, they can go and be poor in their own countries.


>talking about welfare abusers
if someone doesn't have a home, they can't get a fucking job in most places


>neglecting to help others is the same as harming them
just go home already, you're obviously borderline retarded as-is. I bet you think that money makes food appear out of thin air.
so you're just a cool dude in general who happens to have a different ideology than me, I get it.




What the hell are you on about? I just acknowledged that he thinks differently than me. I didn't condemn it or even mock him for it. Hell, I complemented him for hating the shitty parts of our current government, as any sane person ought to.


In that case i shall say sorry.
The "cool dude" part had a mocking feel to it.


That's alright, compliments are tricky on /pol/.


fucking lol ancaps love the authority of their boss. Capitalism inherently involves authority


Socialism is indeed inherently evil due it disrespect for individual freedom.
Please stay consistent no gommunism. Gommunism loves the state and thus loves authority.
How do communes know any better as opposed to the government?


File: ctf4.jpg (56.44 KB, 600x450, 4:3, 1571449144067.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

Anarcho-Capitalism is the only form of anarchism even possible because, sooner or later, someone with enough money and men at his disposal will just take over. Even if you don't have "Mr. Big shot" in the equation, you still run into the problem of "how do you stop people from engaging in basic capitalistic functions such as property ownership or free trade". "Anarcho"-communism is an oxymoron, and anyone identifying as such should be purged from the gene-pool to prevent their genetic defects from spreading.

>tl:dr your system is a fantasy.


Do you think anarchism is even nessary in america?


For a moment, let's ignore the question of whether or not anarchism/anarchy would work out. Instead, let's focus on how exactly you would go about bringing down the current system to set an anarchic society in place. That's my question.


>Socialism is indeed inherently evil due it disrespect for individual freedom.
Left wingers and socialists are infecting america. Hell, it seems like half of the people don't wasn't political before, and then became forced to believe because its popular.
Don't even get me started with media.
Television shows, comicbooks, childrens cartoons, you name it, it got infected.
If it was right wingers, i'd be just as triggered. It seems like no one can even talk freely anymore.
(Mind you i'm referring to modern day socialism and left wing politics.)


How long would an anarchistic society even last?


slightly longer than my grandfather's erection.


why do you assume people would engage in "basic capitalistic functions" in a free society? Capitalism is only 400 years old at best.
Why do you assume there would be "someone with enough money and men"? If someone has men to command what you have is not anarchy, but another form of tyranny.


File: nigga you what.png (946.48 KB, 908x908, 1:1, 1571489087259.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>Capitalism is only 400 years old at best


it somewhat depends on the context of the specific situation someone is in but in broad strokes: prefigurative politics. Build mutual aid networks and forms of horizontal organization to improve the material conditions of your community - basically build the types of things that will exist in an anarchic society. To the best that one can, act like one is already living in a free society.

Do all this to decrease yours and your community's dependence on the state and capital - cooperate with others trying to do the same - until we reach the point when we no longer need it. Eventually, if enough people do this, the state will likely crack down with violence and when that day comes will we need to be ready to defend ourselves.

Different anarchists have different ideas for how exactly revolutionary change will play out. Some, such as syndicalists, believe in the power of utilising unions to bring about an anarchic society - by joining and building unions that have the explicit goal of bringing down the state and capital. Personally, I think that while this was an effective strategy in the 20th century (it worked for catalonia) it's a little outdated in the modern economy. Though I don't think unions are a complete dead end.

Overall though I think a wide range of tactics would be needed to bring about this level of change. There's not going to be any step by step plan or one size fits all solution - and you should be weary of anyone who tries to propose those things as "implementing" a step by step plan will never bring about anarchy as it will be fundamentally authoritarian.


You actually get it, it's about individual autonomy and everyone having their direct say affected. To transition towards anarchy we should split up government support so there are minority governments, and at any level of decision making there should be at least 3 people. The very concept of leadership is submission, which is pathetic, submit to nobody(situationally), but if someone knows more about something than you then it's okay to take instructions.

This website needs to fix its fucking replying on mobile, why does the reply module take up the entire screen and then when I click close I can't scroll.


ancap is just a way to transition to ancom

You need to understand a few concepts, #1 everyone shares the world, #2 currency is only a conceptual barrier between helping others and helping yourself, #3 if people view the world and life as a system to facilitate survival, then you realize that you dont need rewards for doing shit. That's what I think at least but let me know what you think.


Alright, this is pretty interesting. If it worked, it would be incredible. But I don't think it could work, at least not in today's world. From my own experience, I've seen how thoughtless the vast majority of people are. I'm sure I don't need to give examples; we're just a very individualistic species. Someday we might be able to grow above this, but that won't be for a very long time. I guess it's kind of like the ubermensch. Nobody in this time could ever possibly achieve that height, but by striving to do so anyway we lay out a platform for those that come after so they have a better chance.



Found the Twoot


>I've seen how thoughtless the vast majority of people are.

maybe, but there is one thing to consider: people are thoughtless because they live in a world which discourages thinking for oneself. We live in a world full of domination and submission - of authority and obedience. Most people are expected to be obedient - they don't think for themselves not because they inherently lack the capacity but because they've never needed to. And there's a lot to discourage this, from the structure of the education system to the structure of the workplace. Most of us aren't really "ready" for anarchy in this sense - but the thing is, I don't think we'll ever be "ready" until we actually practice it.

Otherwise I mostly agree, I don't think an anarchist world is likely within our lifetimes, but that doesn't stop me from working to build anarchic projects and try to facilitate an anarchic way of life.


I believe in the right to exclusion


no ancaps in an anarchist tread lol
so no real anarchists


>Anarchy General
Zomg lol no ancaps!!11!
(anon, notice all the normalnigger memes dispersed throughout this thread)
I'm glad this thread is over because it was a big mess. It was pretty weird how a group of people tried to force their political opinion here. And to think we wouldn't notice.
Man, what a mess
I mean, its fine to argue about politics but you just can't force things lol and you just cant think that everybody agrees with you. That's one of the main flaws of this thread. You cant just make a lefty pol thread and say "no right wingers" its an imageboard, not twitter.


Hang yourself.


File: sabaean.jpg (137.95 KB, 887x960, 887:960, 1603975505768.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

What do you anarchists think about Arabia (my homeland)?

I have some fondness for anarchism, more or less because of the whole outlaw "if you fuck with me, you're in the ground" idea.

I don't know when the last properly "free" societies were in the Middle East, but we do have the idea of the shura, or council to represent the people. I don't know when this was last used, I do know that during early Islamic times this was used.

I'm personally not exactly completely fitting the mold of anarchism, though I am pro-decentralization.

I want to hear your thoughts, and if you have any questions please feel free to ask me. I love talking to others about my culture and history.

Pic slightly related, it's a Sabaean carving.


I've actually been quite intrested in Anarchy for some time now although I'm not an anarchist myself.

The thing that turns me of from you guys is the fact that it seems as if a lot of you don't really want to dissmantle all government but instead destroy the current one and build a micro-government instead. I think that anarcho-communists miss the point of anarchism completely and are also actually braindead (I'm saying this because I know a lot of you are probably anarcho-communists.)

Id like to have absolute natural freedom and to also see the world burn but I'm still not convinced by you. How many of you are actual anarcho-commies? I'd also like to see you redpill me on anarchism, I truly do want to believe.


There's really no thing as "anarchism". Humans require a form of economy to function and economies come in all shapes and sizes, but the controllers are always the rulers. In Anarcho-Capitalism the rulers are the business leaders, in Anarcho-Communism the rulers are the holders of raw resources and the middlemen that convey and allocate resources. It's hypocritical of AnComs to say AnCaps aren't "Anarchists" when AnComs have an extremely similar power structure, and that is why "Anarchism" doesn't exist...because power is inescapable and creates structure.


ANARCHISM is great!


>No "An"-Caps allowed
Can't be an anarchist and restrict markets from functioning, y'know.


This guy right here fucking gets it. Ancom trannies get the rope.


I wish that your women and homosexual get freedom and safety in the Arabian peninsula

its wrong to kill


Nigga why you just posted a tranny from plebbit?


and the whole thread goes to shit. Thanks man!


>No "An"-Caps allowed
shit from the start


It was shit before the thread was even made, the dumbasses made a "anarchy meme" thread filled with instagram/normie shit which got deleted

[Reply to this Thread]

[Return] [Go to top] [Catalog]
[Post a Reply]