[Palmyrene]

@annatar1914

Why can't you just say everything without the big words and in a simple, concise manner?

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

Why can't you just say everything without the big words and in a simple, concise manner?

I am not a Moron, nor do I talk to others in a condescending manner as if they they were Morons either. If you find my words ''too big'' or the matters I discuss such that they can't be reduced to something shorter or less complicated, perhaps you should look elsewhere for those things.

But before you go, enjoy this video;

And perhaps, you'll see that my Politics isn't so hard to understand. I view events today through a lens which is composed of various ingredients;

1. Orthodox Christianity, and the history of Salvation and Faith In Christ Jesus as we enter the Final Age of the World.

2. The October 1917 Revolution, and the Apocalyptic and Providential dimension of the Bolshevik Revolution in that it happened;

3. In Holy Russia and the Metahistorical aspects of Russian History illuminated by the previous two points.

So that I am with only seeming and illusory ''contradiction'', a convinced Socialist and a devout Orthodox Christian, and would have been a faithful subject of Right-Believing Tsars and in USSR period a citizen involved in Soviet Democracy, because given the nature of things, to have both is probably ideal, without the senseless Atheism of course.

If that doesn't seem to help, I may have to ask my friend @Potemkin for a lifeline to help you understand where I'm coming from.

In short and simple though; I'm a Christian and a National Bolshevik.

[Potemkin]

@annatar1914

Why can't you just say everything without the big words and in a simple, concise manner?

He does Palmy. As Albert Einstein once said, "Science should be as simple as possible - but no simpler." : )

[annatar1914]

He does Palmy. As Albert Einstein once said, "Science should be as simple as possible - but no simpler." : )

Well, it's possible to lose people in a sea of nebulous, ambiguous, but erudite phrases devoid of substance, but I think the issues are too important to not render serious discussion and therefore serious language to the effort of understanding.

But what I find interesting about all this is that in the real practical world, in places like the Donbass and Syria, we see all these strands of my thought combining into one, where people are fighting and dying and killing, all against the same general enemy.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Victoribus Spolia , and others;

Not being an absolute Statist, I cannot attack Libertarianism, Objectivism, Anarcho-Capitalism, etc.. On those grounds before attacking what I think is the main pillar of these political systems, which is the Non-aggression principle. But one main problem I have with it is that it can logically be extended to God Himself.

Wiki article on the NAP;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

But anyways, if it is wrong for anyone to initiate or threaten physical force upon another's person or property, than not only the State but God Himself violates this alleged moral principle. In fact, it makes God the greatest violator of the NAP of all time, which is blasphemous unless I have completely misunderstood God and/or the NAP.

Unless one makes God Himself the Great Anarcho-Capitalist, with unlimited Right to all His Creation to do with as He pleases. But I say to that that God is All Good, and imprints this in our consciences as well, so that we know that our ethics and morality come from His own Heart. He has every right to do as He pleases, but never will He do anything absolutely contrary to His own rule of ''love thy neighbor'' that He has given us.

So where does that leave me in relation to NAP? If it is not wrong for God to initiate or threaten physical force on another's person or property, than it is not wrong for the State or individuals in certain circumstances, either, to initiate or threaten physical force on another.

The Atheist or Anti-theist reply (were they a Libertarian or Objectivist, etc...) would be that there is no God, or that He is an Enemy, so that the NAP still obtains as a moral principle, if not THE moral principle, which holds their political systems together as a coherent whole.

Still think Statism is ''anti-God'', anyone, by it's very nature?

Part of me actually wanted to be wrong about this, as starting a threat of physical force or threatening the same in order to enforce compliance to one's will SEEMS to be wrong on the face of it to our modern minds at least. Generations of teachers from John Locke and J.S. Mill and Herbert Spenser to Ayn Rand have told us that violations of the NAP are terribly wrong.

I can't get past that, and somehow in this is a key to understanding of the American Right also, which owes more to this Classical Liberal tradition and is so contrary to the general position of the European Right which rejects the NAP as Satanic madness. But so too does Communism and Socialism reject the NAP, another reason why I affirm that genuine Marxism is not ''Left'' as such, that the Left/Right divide is a Bourgeoisie affectation deriving from the French Legislature's seating arrangements in the 1800's...

As an aside, I once was arguing for sane gun ownership at a time when I was more of a European-style reactionary, a ''well regulated Militia and all that'', and the gentleman I was arguing with (an American ''conservative'') started yelling that I was ''some kind of Communist!" Without going into the Communist position on the people having weapons, I'd say that from his essentially Libertarian perspective, he wasn't all that far from the mark.

Perhaps we need a new nomenclature and map of the political spectrum, by the way? One that the Libertarian thinkers use but not necessarily from their end of the spectrum? A sane defense of ''Statism'' from Libertarian critique?

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Victoribus Spolia, @Political Interest, @Rei Murasame and my other friends here;

The previous post is the first of a series of projected expansions of the practical and modern day reality of the ideology I express. If reality conforms in some degree to what my personal ideology is, one can expect that what insights I have on other ideologies will have particular merit. Yesterday I wrote of the Non-Aggression Principle and it's falsity, regarding the beliefs of the American Right, Libertarians, Minarchists, and Anarcho-Capitalists.

Today, I will also look at the Right, but at what Marx and Engels called ''Right-Wing Socialism''. To begin with, I'll borrow a helpful video to demonstrate from a Marxian perspective what this is;

Now, the takeaway I want to emphasize are the following three points;

1. Marxists, as Right-Wing Socialists see Marxists, are NOT absolute Statists, and this is correct. People like President Trump are more properly the subject of this video.

2. The ''Right-Wing Socialists'' are the source, via F.J. Hayek, of the horseshit transmitted to the Libertarian wing of the political Spectrum that all manner of Statists are ''Socialists''

3. ''Totalitarian Monopolistic Capitalism''. Sounds like Fascism to me.



See, these posts are integrally related, I just take time and reflection to get my proper points across.

So what is my point?

A realistic political spectrum would place Fascism and other forms of Reactionary Statism on one end. On the other end, would lie the Libertarian, Classical Liberal, American Right, Objectivist, and Anarcho-Capitalist ideologies.

In the Middle, or the Apex, would be the various forms of Socialism and Communism, including National Bolshevism, between the Absolute Statism and Totalitarian Capitalism of the Right, and the near or total Anarchy and cutthroat Capitalism of the REAL LEFT.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Victoribus Spolia;

A realistic political spectrum would place Fascism and other forms of Reactionary Statism on one end. On the other end, would lie the Libertarian, Classical Liberal, American Right, Objectivist, and Anarcho-Capitalist ideologies.

In the Middle, or the Apex, would be the various forms of Socialism and Communism, including National Bolshevism, between the Absolute Statism and Totalitarian Capitalism of the Right, and the near or total Anarchy and cutthroat Capitalism of the REAL LEFT.

If I am correct and this Political Spectrum is the real reflection of political reality in the world, the objection might be raised; ''where are all the 'American Liberals' on this spectrum?''

On the Right, with the other Statists. In America, the whole political class and the Elites are Right, while a significant proportion of the American general population is what I have called the Left, with the Libertarians, American ''Right'', 18th-19th century style Classical Liberals, Anarcho-Capitalists, and so forth. The American political class panders to these people to some degree or other, but is Absolute Statist, therefore Right.

And what about the ''Middle''/Apex of the Spectrum? Well, you know what they say about most people are somewhere in the Middle, it's really true; most human beings in the world who have any kind of political consciousness at all are in fact at heart some variety of Socialist/Communist/National Bolshevik. Not only that, but always have been and likely always will be. The exception being North America and Western Europe, where the situation is almost the reverse, with most people in North America on what i've called the Left, and more people in Western Europe on the Right. Most countries in the world in fact are governed by those on the Right.


The Elites know this, and deep down you know this too, like it or not.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Victoribus Spolia, and others;

So we know the popular Middle of my reconstructed Political Spectrum and their ideologies, we may even sense that I'm correct about some form of Socialism/Communism/National Bolshevism being the view of the majority of the human race, on some level.

But what is ''National Bolshevism'' in my scheme, given that I say that it's my position? Recall that i'd said this earlier;

And perhaps, you'll see that my Politics isn't so hard to understand. I view events today through a lens which is composed of various ingredients;

1. Orthodox Christianity, and the history of Salvation and Faith In Christ Jesus as we enter the Final Age of the World.

2. The October 1917 Revolution, and the Apocalyptic and Providential dimension of the Bolshevik Revolution in that it happened;

3. In Holy Russia and the Metahistorical aspects of Russian History illuminated by the previous two points.

So that I am with only seeming and illusory ''contradiction'', a convinced Socialist and a devout Orthodox Christian, and would have been a faithful subject of Right-Believing Tsars and in USSR period a citizen involved in Soviet Democracy, because given the nature of things, to have both is probably ideal, without the senseless Atheism of course.

If that doesn't seem to help, I may have to ask my friend @Potemkin for a lifeline to help you understand where I'm coming from.

In short and simple though; I'm a Christian and a National Bolshevik.

Therefore;

1. Unlike Marxists, I see that the State in some form will never ''whither away'', nor should it as man is what he is. What the State can be though is the ''State of the Whole People'', true Democracy.

2. The Nation is the primary unit of society and unity among a people; ''Internationalism'' in the sense of ''World Revolution'' is not practical. ''Socialism in one country'' is difficult enough. We cannot expect everyone to be on the same level worldwide, nor can change happen before people are ready to begin implementing change. Culture, spirituality, and historical development are important, as is the development of Capitalism and Imperialism as an effect upon a People. Revolution is an organic development that is peculiar to the People who are led into Revolution.

3. ''Bolshevism''; The Popular Will of the Majority is important. Soviet Democracy, Democratic Centralism, and the leading role of the Party in building Socialism is a reflection of that Popular Will

Again, a significant number of people, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, are with me in having these same views. However that being said, what has been done cannot be undone, and in time the fact of Counter-revolution will lead to further developments in time undreamed of by the original Revolutionaries or Counter-Revolutionaries. A National Bolshevik like myself embraces the process of reality as it is and working within the limitations of people. Counter-Revolution as well as Revolution is a natural product of the unfolding of the historical process.

This places me in my Middle of the Political Spectrum i've made, but closer towards the Absolute Statist Right because of my opinion on the necessity of the State, and it being as large and powerful as it needs to be. But, my position on Revolution, Marxist style Socialism as per the Soviet Union, and Soviet Democracy/Government, keeps me from being on the Right properly speaking. Even closer to the Right are the Social Democrats, by the way.

[Palmyrene]

@annatar1914

That puts you on the Authoritarian Left not Right.

[annatar1914]

@annatar1914

That puts you on the Authoritarian Left not Right.

You haven't paid attention; I flipped the script and made the ''Real Left'' all the Individualists who tend towards Anarchism or Limited (practically non-existent) Government but also in private property and Capitalism in one basic cluster.

The ''Right'' I clustered together all those who Believe in absolute Statism and Capitalism.

In the Middle or Apex if you prefer, I put those who believe in some sort of State (whithered eventually or not) and in some form of Socialism/Communism

Did I leave out Anarcho-Communists and the like? Yes I did and for the reason that they cannot be considered as a ''political ideology'' because Anarchism of that type means the end of Politics as such...

[Palmyrene]

You haven't paid attention; I flipped the script and made the ''Real Left'' all the Individualists who tend towards Anarchism or Limited (practically non-existent) Government but also in private property and Capitalism in one basic cluster.

The ''Right'' I clustered together all those who Believe in absolute Statism and Capitalism.

In the Middle or Apex if you prefer, I put those who believe in some sort of State (whithered eventually or not) and in some form of Socialism/Communism

Did I leave out Anarcho-Communists and the like? Yes I did and for the reason that they cannot be considered as a ''political ideology'' because Anarchism of that type means the end of Politics as such...

There isn't much difference between Anarcho-Communists and Individualist Anarchists like Stirner or Warren. And Anarchism isn't the end of politics although it depends on how you define it. There are post-civilizationists who are argueably ending politics because they de facto move beyond civilization but most anarchism isn't like that.

[annatar1914]

There isn't much difference between Anarcho-Communists and Individualist Anarchists like Stirner or Warren. And Anarchism isn't the end of politics although it depends on how you define it. There are post-civilizationists who are argueably ending politics because they de facto move beyond civilization but most anarchism isn't like that.

I did not place Anarcho-Communism on my political spectrum because I believe it is post-political in it's theory, by it's very premises. However, there are plenty of Anarchists who in my opinion are not consistent in their Anarchism. I'll be honest; I think Anarchist-communists/Anarcho-Syndicalists are ''politically insane''. At least Anarcho-Capitalists have the only solid excuse for Anarchism (the NAP) and do not attempt to eliminate hierarchy. This is why too I place the Real Left as the Libertarian to Anarcho-Capitalist Wing on my revised Political Spectrum;

Libertarians/An-Caps-----------Socialism/Communism/ Nat. Bolshevism----------Statists

[Palmyrene]

I did not place Anarcho-Communism on my political spectrum because I believe it is post-political in it's theory, by it's very premises.

No more that individualists. In fact, the extreme egoists and individualists are so alien that they reject society as a whole. They are post-left.

Anarcho-Communists are criticized by being too political and milquetoast by individualist anarchist. The only reason why you would think otherwise is because you've never read any actual individualist or anarcho-communist thinkers.

Ancaps aren't individualist. Property absolutism isn't individualist.

However, there are plenty of Anarchists who in my opinion are not consistent in their Anarchism. I'll be honest; I think Anarchist-communists/Anarcho-Syndicalists are ''politically insane''. At least Anarcho-Capitalists have the only solid excuse for Anarchism (the NAP) and do not attempt to eliminate hierarchy.

There's alot to unpack here. I'll be honest that this seems to be a rather unflattering depiction of syndicalism and I would be lying if I said I wasn't slightly offended but that's not really a good point.

You don't really seem to understand anarchism; neither syndicalism or individualism. For starters, individualism is so anti-hierarchy that they literally propose everyone act as selfish as others and Individualists criticize ancoms and syndicalists as being too hierarchial or electoral (I disagree with that criticism for several reason but I digress).

Secondly, the NAP isn't an "excuse for anarchism". It's a stupid philosophical position (not unlike "the Invisible Hand") that holds no water in any practical scenario. As I've discussed before with you I believe, the NAP holds no water in practicality.

Anarchism had far better theory than Ancapism could ever have. Most of Ancapism is just flagrant attempts at justifying the excesses of capitalism and would only result in another state or feudalism immediately after the destruction of the state. The only reason why it's popular at all is because the Koch Brothers fund it.

[annatar1914]

No more that individualists. In fact, the extreme egoists and individualists are so alien that they reject society as a whole. They are post-left.

They take it to the very edge. Why I kept them on a political spectrum at all is that each individualists freehold constitutes a State, in practical effect, whatever else they want to call it, and States began as such families.

Anarcho-Communists are criticized by being too political and milquetoast by individualist anarchist. The only reason why you would think otherwise is because you've never read any actual individualist or anarcho-communist thinkers.

Having read Bakunin, Kropotkin, Stirner, and a few others, I think I'm a fair judge. Nothing they said, besides it's moral and ethical content or lack thereof, has zero chance of ever succeeding, due to a pathological misunderstanding of human nature

Ancaps aren't individualist. Property absolutism isn't individualist.

Sure it is, they believe property is an extension of their individual being.

There's alot to unpack here. I'll be honest that this seems to be a rather unflattering depiction of syndicalism and I would be lying if I said I wasn't slightly offended but that's not really a good point.

Not here to flatter or emotionally uphold ideas I myself don't believe in. I'm pretty dispassionate about politics anyway, including my own.

You don't really seem to understand anarchism; neither syndicalism or individualism. For starters, individualism is so anti-hierarchy that they literally propose everyone act as selfish as others and Individualists criticize ancoms and syndicalists as being too hierarchial or electoral (I disagree with that criticism for several reason but I digress).

I know what Anarchism is in effect, what it's attempt to produce would result in. Besides, as I said I've read all these guys, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature that frankly is quite delusional, such that I quite disagree even with Marxists over their ''whithering away of the State'' schtick.

Secondly, the NAP isn't an "excuse for anarchism". It's a stupid philosophical position (not unlike "the Invisible Hand") that holds no water in any practical scenario. As I've discussed before with you I believe, the NAP holds no water in practicality.

Whatever it's demerits-I don't hold to it either-it does give true Anarchists (the Anarcho-Capitalists) a logically self-consistent framework to build Anarchism upon even if untrue.

Anarchism had far better theory than Ancapism could ever have. Most of Ancapism is just flagrant attempts at justifying the excesses of capitalism and would only result in another state or feudalism immediately after the destruction of the state. The only reason why it's popular at all is because the Koch Brothers fund it.

Wrong. It's popular because it's a bedrock feature of American Hyper-Individualist belief. And, some people actually have lived it (in the American ''Old West'') and a few even to this day. As I said, it's still somewhat related to a State, since the Family/Clan is a Proto-State.

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin , @Victoribus Spolia, and others;

Since this is what I believe;

1. Unlike Marxists, I see that the State in some form will never ''whither away'', nor should it as man is what he is. What the State can be though is the ''State of the Whole People'', true Democracy.

2. The Nation is the primary unit of society and unity among a people; ''Internationalism'' in the sense of ''World Revolution'' is not practical. ''Socialism in one country'' is difficult enough. We cannot expect everyone to be on the same level worldwide, nor can change happen before people are ready to begin implementing change. Culture, spirituality, and historical development are important, as is the development of Capitalism and Imperialism as an effect upon a People. Revolution is an organic development that is peculiar to the People who are led into Revolution.

3. ''Bolshevism''; The Popular Will of the Majority is important. Soviet Democracy, Democratic Centralism, and the leading role of the Party in building Socialism is a reflection of that Popular Will

Again, a significant number of people, particularly in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, are with me in having these same views. However that being said, what has been done cannot be undone, and in time the fact of Counter-revolution will lead to further developments in time undreamed of by the original Revolutionaries or Counter-Revolutionaries. A National Bolshevik like myself embraces the process of reality as it is and working within the limitations of people. Counter-Revolution as well as Revolution is a natural product of the unfolding of the historical process.

This places me in my Middle of the Political Spectrum i've made, but closer towards the Absolute Statist Right because of my opinion on the necessity of the State, and it being as large and powerful as it needs to be. But, my position on Revolution, Marxist style Socialism as per the Soviet Union, and Soviet Democracy/Government, keeps me from being on the Right properly speaking. Even closer to the Right are the Social Democrats, by the way.

It may come as a surprise to some who see I self-Identify politically with ''Bolshevik'' as part of the description, that I reject Revolution entirely. I believe that;

1. Revolution is a total evil, an absolute sin, ''Because it is like the sin of witchcraft, to rebel: and like the crime of idolatry, to refuse to obey.''

1 Samuel 15:23

a. but the Bolsheviks did not overthrow a legitimate government of Russia in 1917. The Tsar abdicated and the ''Provisional Government'' took over, with no authority. Months later, the Bolsheviks took authority in the name of the legitimate and organic Soviets of Workers and Soldiers which co-existed briefly with the Provisional regime without fully accepting it.

2. Counter-Revolution is an absolute sin, because it too is Revolution albeit in reverse, for concerning the Ruler they are trying to overthrow;


''For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.''

Romans 13:4

Therefore, as good as the righteous and just Whites were in the Russian Civil War, and as evil as the God-fighting and evil Reds were, the Reds had the victory because of the sin of rebellion committed by the Whites, especially in the face of the occupations of the Foreign Interventionists and their armed expeditions on Russian soil during that time, who also were helping the Whites. A paradox to be sure, and so I once again I do not judge any man in troubling times especially, the times in which ''there was no king in Israel; every man did what seemed right in his own eyes''.

[Palmyrene]

They take it to the very edge. Why I kept them on a political spectrum at all is that each individualists freehold constitutes a State, in practical effect, whatever else they want to call it, and States began as such families.

Individualists don't hold to the idea of property at all. Max Stirner famously declared that everything is his and everything is yours. In the eyes of an egoist, everything in the world is his property and this idea is mutual amongst egoists.

Having read Bakunin, Kropotkin, Stirner, and a few others, I think I'm a fair judge. Nothing they said, besides it's moral and ethical content or lack thereof, has zero chance of ever succeeding, due to a pathological misunderstanding of human nature

I'm not particularly sure you understand human nature. Especially with the modern information we have now.

Also if you've read Stirner you know what an actual individualist is so you have no excuse for calling ancaps "individualists" to any degree.

Sure it is, they believe property is an extension of their individual being.

I can believe that the public bus is an extension of my individual being but that doesn't make it so.

From an egoist perspective, property is an extension of individuals but it is also tyranny as well. As Proudhon said, "Property is theft! Property is liberty!". It's a juxtaposition.

Not here to flatter or emotionally uphold ideas I myself don't believe in. I'm pretty dispassionate about politics anyway, including my own.

Then why spend all this time writing a book on PoFo when you should just write on paper?

For an anti-civilizationist, you are remarkably technological. You write to your online friends on an internet forum on a thread which resembles a full book.

It's quite ironic.

I know what Anarchism is in effect, what it's attempt to produce would result in. Besides, as I said I've read all these guys, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature that frankly is quite delusional, such that I quite disagree even with Marxists over their ''whithering away of the State'' schtick.

What do you think "human nature" is? I take an anti-essentialist perspective on human nature. Given that we have reached a point where we are self aware of the fact that we evolve as well as being technologically capable of creating whatever environment suits our needs, human nature can be anything.

I'm Syrian being all optimistic and you're a Westerner living in a cushy apartment building talking about "the fragility of human civilization" with a solemn face.

Whatever it's demerits-I don't hold to it either-it does give true Anarchists (the Anarcho-Capitalists) a logically self-consistent framework to build Anarchism upon even if untrue.

For God's sake Anarcho-capitalists literally stole the term Anarchism from actual Anarchists. The guy who made Ancapism gloated about the theft in one of his books.

Of course, if there's anything Capitalists are good at, it's theft.

Wrong. It's popular because it's a bedrock feature of American Hyper-Individualist belief. And, some people actually have lived it (in the American ''Old West'') and a few even to this day. As I said, it's still somewhat related to a State, since the Family/Clan is a Proto-State.

No, it's not. For starters the American pioneer thing is a myth and was encouraged by the state so it's not very individualist. Secondly, American individualism started with anti-capitalism.

Furthermore, Ancapism literally gets money from the Koch brothers. That's the only reason anyone even knows about it.

[annatar1914]

Individualists don't hold to the idea of property at all. Max Stirner famously declared that everything is his and everything is yours.

I know what Stirner wrote, all aphorism and no real life. Meanwhile, real Individualists in the real world were going about trying to get as much property as possible for themselves.

In the eyes of an egoist, everything in the world is his property and this idea is mutual amongst egoists.

Yes, ''Clash of the Titans'', man, winner take all. So far from their minds is the idea of property not being real at all.

I'm not particularly sure you understand human nature. Especially with the modern information we have now.

I especially understand human nature because there's absolutely nothing new under the sun, nothing, and especially in the realm of human thought. That comment makes you something of a philosophical Idealist, btw. Give yourself some time, you'll see.

Also if you've read Stirner you know what an actual individualist is so you have no excuse for calling ancaps "individualists" to any degree.

''Actual'' as in something in a book by some poor fool who killed himself, or ''actual'' as in genuinely lived ''Individualism''?

I can believe that the public bus is an extension of my individual being but that doesn't make it so.

But you're not an egoist Individualist who believes in private property, either. Nor am I, for that matter, which makes this exchange particularly curious.

From an egoist perspective, property is an extension of individuals but it is also tyranny as well. As Proudhon said, "Property is theft! Property is liberty!". It's a juxtaposition.

Again, making Marx's commentary on Proudhon all the more correct. Nor was Proudhon or Stirner's views identical by any means.

Then why spend all this time writing a book on PoFo when you should just write on paper?

Would you read it? As I said, it's not for you that I write, or even myself.

For an anti-civilizationist, you are remarkably technological. You write to your online friends on an internet forum on a thread which resembles a full book.

And Engels owned a factory. But the best reply I can make is, while I know the sickness, it does not mean that I will survive the illness myself. For me it's either ''Socialism or Barbarism'' as Rosa Luxemburg once said, and I will be fine either way.

Anti-Civilization =/= anti-technology anyways

It's quite ironic.

You reach people better where they are, not where they're not.

What do you think "human nature" is? I take an anti-essentialist perspective on human nature. Given that we have reached a point where we are self aware of the fact that we evolve

I refuse the alleged ''fact'' that we ''evolve''. You really haven't been reading this thread intently.

as well as being technologically capable of creating whatever environment suits our needs, human nature can be anything.

And the skies will turn to cotton candy and the seas will turn to lemonade

Total Bullshit. You wish it to be so, doesn't make it so.

I'm Syrian being all optimistic and you're a Westerner living in a cushy apartment building talking about "the fragility of human civilization" with a solemn face.

You assume I'm a ''Westerner'' in a ''cushy apartment'', and i've actually lived the ''fragility of human civilization''. Do you think I'm a Socialist because I'm some dreamy eyed enthusiast, some college kid whose experience of life equals donkey shit up to that point in their short existence?

No. You're flat out wrong. About many, many things. But life is going to teach you.

For God's sake Anarcho-capitalists literally stole the term Anarchism from actual Anarchists. The guy who made Ancapism gloated about the theft in one of his books.

The Anarchist said; ''they stole'' ... Oh, the horror, the horror... . They saw a term that fit their Ideology, like myself and others who took the word ''Bolshevik'' and made a new ideological descriptive term; ''National Bolshevik''.

Of course, if there's anything Capitalists are good at, it's theft.

They're not the only ones who do it, theft, but yes of course.

No, it's not. For starters the American pioneer thing is a myth and was encouraged by the state so it's not very individualist.

No, it is a myth, but it's a believed myth, a myth that comes from Protestantism. But being a 15 year old Syrian in A.H. 1441 you might not know much about the impact of Protestantism upon the American experience

Secondly, American individualism started with anti-capitalism.

No, it did not. Read Max Weber if you can. It was Protestant Christianity.

Furthermore, Ancapism literally gets money from the Koch brothers. That's the only reason anyone even knows about it.

It does? Does it get it in nice gold bars too?

No, ''Anarcho-Capitalism'' is akin to what many societies go through, like Medieval Japan, Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and the ''Old West'' during the phase of settlement of North America. Later, some radical Libertarians put a name on it and an intellectual and philosophical pedigree.

Now, I'll be talking about Anarchism some more in a month or so, but for now, I'm going to be focused on some pretty eschatological and apocalyptic stuff; the rise of President Donald Trump and what it means to my worldview and to the rest of the world in general.

As I say, relevant and engaged with the real world.

[Palmyrene]

I know what Stirner wrote, all aphorism and no real life. Meanwhile, real Individualists in the real world were going about trying to get as much property as possible for themselves.

What? Pretty much everything Stirner said is remarkably practical.

Also Stirners assertion is that all property is already his so he has no reason to justify nor assert his control over it.

Those quote on quote "real individualists" aren't individualists because they reject listening to their ego and instead make themselves slaves to their property.

Instead of recognizing that they own everything already, they're insecure about that fact and need people to recognize that they own that property. Thus, they need people not to use said property.

They're either insecure weirdos, grew up in capitalist culture, or just fools who thought that being an ancap was cool and traditional.

Yes, ''Clash of the Titans'', man, winner take all. So far from their minds is the idea of property not being real at all.

Pardon? It's not winner takes all. In the eyes of an egoist, they already won. They own everything, you own everything, we all own everything.

Also you claim that Stirner thinks that property exists when he said that property is a spook?

He invented the term "spook" for God's sake! I don't think you read him quite well.

I especially understand human nature because there's absolutely nothing new under the sun, nothing, and especially in the realm of human thought. That comment makes you something of a philosophical Idealist, btw. Give yourself some time, you'll see.

Can you spare the "you'll understand when you grow up talk" and elaborate on what you think human nature is?

''Actual'' as in something in a book by some poor fool who killed himself, or ''actual'' as in genuinely lived ''Individualism''?

1. Stirner didn't kill himself. He died of insect bites and stings.

2. Yeah I'm referring to actual individualism or, in other words, Stirner.

But you're not an egoist Individualist who believes in private property, either. Nor am I, for that matter, which makes this exchange particularly curious.

1. An egoist doesn't believe in property.

2. You made a claim about individualism and I, as a scholar of anarchism, corrected it. The fact that you're debating me at all is what makes this curious.

Again, making Marx's commentary on Proudhon all the more correct. Nor was Proudhon or Stirner's views identical by any means.

All of Marx's commentary is incoherent and makes very little sense. I doubt Marx did more than skim through Proudhon's work. It's a messy critique that doesn't address any of it.

Would you read it? As I said, it's not for you that I write, or even myself.

Then there's no point in writing it if no one is going to read it.

And Engels owned a factory. But the best reply I can make is, while I know the sickness, it does not mean that I will survive the illness myself. For me it's either ''Socialism or Barbarism'' as Rosa Luxemburg once said, and I will be fine either way.

I don't get it and I don't really care by this point.

Anti-Civilization =/= anti-technology anyways

But you're not post-civilization either.

You reach people better where they are, not where they're not.

True but PoFo is not where people are. You should post on reddit or something.

I refuse the alleged ''fact'' that we ''evolve''. You really haven't been reading this thread intently.

Yeah I know you're religious but that doesn't quite matter to me.

And the skies will turn to cotton candy and the seas will turn to lemonade

Total Bullshit. You wish it to be so, doesn't make it so.

I am confused as to why you're responding with this to that statement. It seems rather obvious.

The only people skeptical of our technological capabilities are people who don't understand it. Talk to @Rancid and he'll rid you of this ignorance.

You assume I'm a ''Westerner'' in a ''cushy apartment'', and i've actually lived the ''fragility of human civilization''. Do you think I'm a Socialist because I'm some dreamy eyed enthusiast, some college kid whose experience of life equals donkey shit up to that point in their short existence?

No. You're flat out wrong. About many, many things. But life is going to teach you.

You seem very offended by this. Probably because it describes you to a tee. You are a Westerner (or a Russian) and you do live a very comfortable life probably in retirement.

The Anarchist said; ''they stole'' ... Oh, the horror, the horror... . They saw a term that fit their Ideology, like myself and others who took the word ''Bolshevik'' and made a new ideological descriptive term; ''National Bolshevik''.

?

This doesn't change that Ancaps aren't real anarchists. A shoddy copy with the label slapped on isn't the real thing, it's a shoddy copy.

They're not the only ones who do it, theft, but yes of course.

Pretty sure they are. Capitalism is a process. People stealing wealth from others and using that wealth in capitalism to get more wealth are capitalists.

No, it is a myth, but it's a believed myth, a myth that comes from Protestantism. But being a 15 year old Syrian in A.H. 1441 you might not know much about the impact of Protestantism upon the American experience

I do.

No, it did not. Read Max Weber if you can. It was Protestant Christianity.

Still anti-capitalist.

It does? Does it get it in nice gold bars too?

Yup.

No, ''Anarcho-Capitalism'' is akin to what many societies go through, like Medieval Japan, Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and the ''Old West'' during the phase of settlement of North America. Later, some radical Libertarians put a name on it and an intellectual and philosophical pedigree.

That's feudalism (also the Old West isn't feudalism). It's s term that existed before ancapism.

And individualism isn't feudalism.

Now, I'll be talking about Anarchism some more in a month or so, but for now, I'm going to be focused on some pretty eschatological and apocalyptic stuff; the rise of President Donald Trump and what it means to my worldview and to the rest of the world in general.

As I say, relevant and engaged with the real world.

I'm correcting everything you say wrong about anarchism.

[annatar1914]

What? Pretty much everything Stirner said is remarkably practical.

Lol, nothing an Anarchist says is practical, almost by definition.

Also Stirners assertion is that all property is already his so he has no reason to justify nor assert his control over it.

Do you realize how insane that statement is? It's on the level of a guy who says he's buttered toast.

Those quote on quote "real individualists" aren't individualists because they reject listening to their ego and instead make themselves slaves to their property.

Wrong. They believe that their property is the physical extension of their Will. What you may think of that is besides the point.

Instead of recognizing that they own everything already, they're insecure about that fact and need people to recognize that they own that property. Thus, they need people not to use said property.

Sorry, that's more crazy talk. People who come up with these ''ideas'' were deeply humiliated as children.

They're either insecure weirdos, grew up in capitalist culture, or just fools who thought that being an ancap was cool and traditional.

Most An-Caps have indeed grown up in Capitalist culture. The other comments are speculation on your part, and not very good either at that.

Pardon? It's not winner takes all. In the eyes of an egoist, they already won. They own everything, you own everything, we all own everything.

I'm talking real Egoists, who take whatever they can take, not being some odd duck who pretends in their mind that they already own everything...

Also you claim that Stirner thinks that property exists when he said that property is a spook?

He invented the term "spook" for God's sake! I don't think you read him quite well.

Stirner is hard to read the same way the crackhead who sits on the bench at the nearest gas station to where I live is 'hard to read'; I know that the man is sick, but trying to figure out the depths of his sickness serves neither my purposes nor his.

Can you spare the "you'll understand when you grow up talk" and elaborate on what you think human nature is?

Not what I think, what I know. ''Homo Homini Lupus Est''; ''Man is Wolf to Man''.

1. Stirner didn't kill himself. He died of insect bites and stings.

You're right. But he slowly ceased being a human being so that by the time he was buried...

2. Yeah I'm referring to actual individualism or, in other words, Stirner.

''actual'', as in real world, not, the words of a 19th century German moron.

1. An egoist doesn't believe in property.

Again, real world.

2. You made a claim about individualism and I, as a scholar of anarchism, corrected it. The fact that you're debating me at all is what makes this curious.

Being a ''scholar of Anarchism'' is like being the ''scholar of the flea circus'', with about as much impact on the world at large.

All of Marx's commentary is incoherent and makes very little sense.

I doubt Marx did more than skim through Proudhon's work. It's a messy critique that doesn't address any of it.

In your opinion.

Then there's no point in writing it if no one is going to read it.

I'm sure it's read.

I don't get it and I don't really care by this point.

Good. It's not meant for you to get if you don't get it.

But you're not post-civilization either.

Not yet.

True but PoFo is not where people are. You should post on reddit or something.

You're on PoFo, right? Maybe you should post on reddit or something. As for me I have my reasons for being here. If you don't get it, don't post on my threads.

Yeah I know you're religious but that doesn't quite matter to me.

Then don't post comments about it not mattering, if it doesn't matter to you.

I am confused as to why you're responding with this to that statement. It seems rather obvious.

''Seems''.

The only people skeptical of our technological capabilities are people who don't understand it. Talk to @Rancid and he'll rid you of this ignorance.

I'm not skeptical of technology. I'm skeptical of people with technology.

You seem very offended by this. Probably because it describes you to a tee. You are a Westerner (or a Russian) and you do live a very comfortable life probably in retirement.

?

This doesn't change that Ancaps aren't real anarchists. A shoddy copy with the label slapped on isn't the real thing, it's a shoddy copy.

So Anarchists will sue Anarchist-Capitalists in a court of law for trademark infringement?

Pretty sure they are. Capitalism is a process. People stealing wealth from others and using that wealth in capitalism to get more wealth are capitalists.

One dog eats another.

I do.

Good. Then you know that you are incorrect about American Individualism being anti-capitalist and not coming from the Protestant experience in America. Read up on Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner for example. They aren't anti-Capitalist at their core.

That's feudalism (also the Old West isn't feudalism). It's s term that existed before ancapism.

I'm talking about reality. When you live on and own a ranch in 1870's Texas with a large spread of Cattle and have 30 hired hands working for you, and you engage in range wars with your neighbors to expand your lands, you're a feudal land baron. And an Anarcho-Capitalist (or are at least attempting to live as such)

And individualism isn't feudalism.

It isn't? Since when? Mutual Feudal duties and rights presuppose individualism at it's core, missing from other societies to be sure.

I'm correcting everything you say wrong about anarchism.

As I am not speaking further about Anarchism for quite some time, you will have to cross swords with someone else on the issue of Anarchism.

[quetzalcoatl]

@Potemkin , @Victoribus Spolia, and others;

...Unlike Marxists, I see that the State in some form will never ''whither away'', nor should it as man is what he is. What the State can be though is the ''State of the Whole People'', true Democracy...

Marxists may acknowledge that the state, in theory, may wither away. In 20th century practice, it appears that once a vanguard is installed as protector of the revolution, the state becomes an ossified, permanent entity.

---------

Hierarchies become destructive as they become removed and distant, unresponsive to the needs of their members. Smaller more local hierarchies preserve the individuals sense of belonging. The state is the mechanism by which these smaller hierarchies express their collective will. (Bolsheviks understood this at some level. Workers Soviets were originally intended to govern the newly created state.)

---------

The state will never wither away as long as humans aspire to collective action. Not sure if this makes me a statist. I don't worship power, as the libertarian critique might suggest. But I do see it as a necessity for humans to live together. Perhaps this will be proven wrong in the future, but I don't think it will.

--------

I've formulated a few modest alternatives to the common liberal tropes of limited government:

1) Government is not the solution. Government is not the problem. Government is the tool of collective public purpose.

2) That government which governs least governs least. That government which governs best governs best. There is no causal connection between these two statements.

3) There is no ideal size of government. The size of government is determined by the collective public purpose.