[KlassWar]

If every single hick who had access to a body of water could sell as much water as he wanted, the aquifer would go dry. Rinse and repeat with many hicks and many aquifers and you're now living in the desert. You can't just extract water like it's the Horn of Abundance.

[Rei Murasame]

Can any anarcho-capitalists please please please stop making me have to repeat this complaint. Almost all these responses involve you all saying, "in an ideal anarcho-capitalist world they aren't allowed to do that". Which is almost like saying, "in an ideal world I turn on the taps and lemon sherbet comes out of them instead of just tap water, it's from like an Enid Blyton book!"

Okay! How do you get from where we are now, to sherbet-land? I hear no methodology here whatsoever! Whenever we present historical problems which show why you cannot have it, the stock-anarcho-capitalist response seems to be Eran type lecturing on, "Well y'see we don't support that behaviour..."

How do any of you plan to stop it!?

Mikema63 has even flipped the script to the point where we are all now arguing about a hypothetical scenario where everyone hands control of a country over to him (why?!), and then we are the ones arguing about whether we can stay inside his hypothetical anarcho-capitalist non-country which no one has even explained how it would come into existence in pure form?

[Nunt]

These criticisms to ancap are basically on the same level as: "What if a government dictator obtains power and starts killing everyone? How are statists going to stop that?".

[Rei Murasame]

That is a valid criticism to make! I am on the receiving end of that all the time, just the difference is that I actually answer it on a class basis, and can describe the check and balances that are supposed to be built into revolutionary process (that word 'process' is not used idly) which aims to mitigate that very real problem.

I've never declined to answer that question, and will even repeat the methodology now if someone is willing to go off-topic for a few posts to watch that happen.

[Daktoria]

I hate garbage trucks.

What will a statist do to make sure garbage trucks don't run at 5 in the morning and sound like a robot taking a shit right outside my window for 30 minutes?

[KlassWar]

Pull yourself by yer own bootstraps and soundproof your room.

[Daktoria]

Screw that. I threw my bootstraps in the trash years ago after tripping over them all the time.

[KlassWar]

Patronizing as fuck, huh? That's how unemployed folks see it when they're told to "work hard".

[Rei Murasame]

I hate garbage trucks.

Which is totally a problem of the same magnitude as Bechtel owning your entire water network. Oh wait, possibly not!

[Daktoria]

Patronizing as fuck, huh? That's how unemployed folks see it when they're told to "work hard".

That's Protestantism for ya.

Of course, that's probably why the garbage trucks are running at 5 in the morning too. Nobody handles trash cans like the mafia can.

[grassroots1]

Mikema63 has even flipped the script to the point where we are all now arguing about a hypothetical scenario where everyone hands control of a country over to him (why?!), and then we are the ones arguing about whether we can stay inside his hypothetical anarcho-capitalist non-country which no one has even explained how it would come into existence in pure form?

I'm willing to engage on those terms because it highlights the absurdity...

PS Red Barn, presentation postponed til later in the week. I'll let you know how it goes.

[Rei Murasame]

That's Protestantism for ya.

Doesn't explain this from the other side of the world: [Link]

You all need to visit the Asian Party thread more often, it's best ethnic 'party' thread in all of Gorkiy, and it's the only one that has consistently epic contributions.

[Rainbow Crow]

These criticisms to ancap are basically on the same level as: "What if a government dictator obtains power and starts killing everyone? How are statists going to stop that?".

That would be illegal, while the problems with an AnCap society would all be legal...

Also:

Best reason to be a Libertarian that I've yet to hear.

[Soixante-Retard]

^ Blue Puppy, maybe you should ask yourself one question: Do you want more or less freedom for yourself and for others?

[Decky]

^ Blue Puppy, maybe you should ask yourself one question: Do you want more or less freedom for yourself and for others?

State =/=Slavery

Absence of State =/= freedom.

Has it occurred to you that some people feel a state could make us more free?

[Soixante-Retard]

Decky, when your decisions are overridden by somebody of a higher authority, how free are you?

War is peace,
Freedom is slavery,
Ignorance is strength.

Or do you believe, like Marxists, that "in order to free the masses, they have first to be enslaved".

[Rei Murasame]

This purpose of this post is to defend new fascist theory and action in a post-1968 world, and to explain ideological coherence.

That [mass killing] would be illegal

Nope, it's possible for a government to legally kill millions of people for reasons that are not ones that we wanted, by establishing a dual-state and then giving their own security forces the ability to place people outside the protection of the state.

Under statism, citizenship is life, and to place someone outside citizenship can in a dual-state scenario lead to that person being legally killed.

The way to prevent this type of disaster from happening does not involve merely saying there'd be a law against it (how would that happen anyway?), rather it involves having actually carried out the revolution in such a way that it had established that state in such a way that the components of the revolution could secede from the project and destroy the state if it goes in a direction they don't approve of.

I am going to do what I said I might do, and actually explain this. This is directed at everyone, so everyone please pay attention. Let me give the example of how to be coherent.

First the summary of the narrative:

I would say that the upper-middle class has been locketing away an astonishingly high proportion of the growing wealth. They are even now using the liberal-capitalist state which they created, as an implement to further facilitate that.

The working class have been facing an offensive from the upper-middle class, which has really been intensifying over the last few years. It is an offensive against public services, incomes, living standards and unions in order to short-sightedly boost the returns for multinational companies led by international finance. Not contented with the banks receiving the biggest bailout in the history of capitalism - a bailout that they themselves engineered - international finance apparently wants to continue to make the national community skirt closer to destruction to serve the narrow interests of financial institutions.

We in the middle-middle class have been asked to co-operate with this disastrous development, but we should not co-operate with it, since it poses an existential threat to the national community. It's about time to seriously get a desire to take our countries back. If the present system is incapable of adequately allocating wealth to fulfil our policy preferences and foster social harmony - and now there is no doubt that it is incapable - then it ought to be sublated or abolished.

Then a summary of the principles, the aim being to foster full employment, growth, social inclusion, sustainability, health, and defence of a specific ancestral breeding group and its dominance of a civic space:

We can seize the chance to build a new social order, in a new historic bloc. We can find meaning and reward in serving some cause higher than ourselves, a glimmering purpose, the warm glow of a thousand points of light, illuminating every child in the nation. Aren't we all gazing up at the same stars, are our feet not planted firmly on the same Land?

We have to remember what that higher purpose is, the defence and maintenance of our population group. The nation is a project under renovation and construction, it should accept new parts and incorporate them appropriately, nurturing and developing them in accordance with our climate and what the new environment requires, while at the same time also continuing to conserve what has been passed down to us, if it is good, vetted and purified from among our people since the most ancient times.

We have to act in the interests of those who came before us, those who are presently alive, and those who will come after us. This is so that we can safeguard our existence as a distinct people indefinitely/forever, and along the way possibly discover the Reason/Truth that lies behind our existence and explore the unexplained laws of nature and the special powers latent in humans*.


* Hey, isn't that the line at the bottom of my signature? That's on purpose!

Then a summary of the path:

Primary phenomenon will always take revenge against any attempt to narrowly alter their derivative phenomenon.

Mass migration is a derivative phenomenon, meaning that the ethnic contradictions are secondary to the primary contradiction which is the contradiction between:



• The middle class whose interest is to be nationally hegemonic by arranging a unity of purpose between territorially-coincident capital and labour so that it can carry out its social goals,
  
  VS
  
  
  
• Finance capital, whose interest is to most rapidly engage in wealth-accumulation and knock down any inconvenient barriers to that accumulation.


What this means for us is that in order to credibly address any of the social goals, such as halting the mass immigration process, we must criticise liberal-capitalism and highlight the actual centrality of capitalist logic in the re-production of a scenario where this mass immigration (and whatever else we don't like) is occurring. That must happen openly and it must accompany a complete divorce from any centre-right organisations - that line must be drawn firmly in the sand.

Another pitfall that we must avoid is the misuse of the word 'greed'. Greed is not the problem. It is not greed which perpetuates capitalism, it is capitalism which perpetuates capitalism; it is capitalism which penetrates and shapes society in such a way that the use of capitalist logic becomes the path of least resistance [to surviving] in that society.

What is needed is for nationalists to kick against that logic and call for an ethnic solidarity in which we become comfortable with co-operating with and working alongside people of differing social statuses in our business-lives, so that capitalism can be dealt a strong blow and the experience of real community would be a practice and not just a word.

This solidarited 'real community' effect must be actualised through 'the path of national-labour', a struggle in which the middle class would reach out to the working class and establish a rival base of economic power using a labour movement to facilitate the dispersal of economic power into national guilds and co-determinate corporations, and co-operatives. That is the only way to challenge finance. That material condition must be satisfied in order to attain the power to act; that is the only way that a Far Right party would ever be able to reach power while maintaining its integrity.

And it is only then, that the potential would exist for the state to be actually commandeered by our new political class, a new political class which is interested in social justice and spiritual advancement of the indigenous people of Europe; that commitment being bolstered and encouraged by the aforementioned solid material incentives, in a civil society in which our community-oriented ideology would have already displaced liberalism and would be triumphant and total.

The desires of our new political class could then be fashioned into a coherent corporatist institutional arrangement which - through consensus-building - would develop those desires into a workable methodology and therefore totalitarian action.

Oh, totalitarian action! But Ludwig von Mises and all his libertarian friends have a criticism, a valid criticism of my idea - someone might do nasty things which hurt us, us! Here:

There is no doubt that any attempt to realize the corporativist utopia would in a very short time lead to violent conflicts, if the government did not interfere when the vital industries abused their privileged position. What the doctrinaires envisage only as an exceptional measure—the interference of the government—will become the rule. Guild socialism and corporativism will turn into full government control of all production activities. They will develop into that system of Prussian Zwangswirtschaft [compulsory economy - permanent state of exception and other scary things] which they were designed to avoid.

To which I respond by saying that it is a problem that we acknowledge is real, since the power to strangle resources is what gives the guilds their power, and is what allows them to take the government away from liberals in the first place. Yes.

But this is a feature, not a flaw, the potential for conflict is part of the balance of powers, so we also are open to the possibility that fascist guilds might need to actually turn and shut down the very same fascist government they helped inaugurate by using that power, and we are also open to the possibility that a fascist government may need to mediate to prevent a breakdown caused by inter-guild squabbling.

So in other words, there is a deliberate kill-switch built into this which can be triggered not by by some wishful thinking or law on a piece of paper, but by actual class motives coupled with a concrete ability to control resources.

Okay.

It is this developmental talk that I am having in this post now, this talk about the act of constructing a movement, that the libertarians and others similar to them, never talk about. Libertarians are consistently talking about what they support as a finished product, jumping from one conception to another, with no talk about class based incentives at all.

One often hears libertarians and middle class people of all stripes saying things like, "Oh I support the death penalty", "I oppose the death penalty", "I support licorice allsorts being handed out for free to kids in preschool", "I oppose the bill called CMD6758", "I support national self-determination", "I support your mother". No, they don't support any such thing if they can't describe a path to get there.

You'll notice in my quote above, when describing my ideology - the Third Position - I refer as always to 'the path of national-labour'. Why the path? Let me say to everyone, that word is not just there to sound pretty, that word was deliberately selected by fascist theoreticians in 1935. "The path of national-labour" is distinctly different from something like just "the principles of national-labour". The word PATH is such a valuable word.

A movement that has political potential is a movement that has a path. I really hope everyone is reading me properly here.

In order to be coherent, the people in my camp had to discover and say on the record:

• 1. A clear narrative about the current crisis based on some class analysis. CHECK.
  
  
• 2. Fundamental principles on which actions are based. CHECK.
  
  
• 3. A path which leads to a framework in which a programme may develop (notice that we don't presume to know every detail of what that programme will be in all scenarios!) to address the contradictions at the root of the crisis. CHECK.

Even if people disagree with how I've done it, at least it has been laid out. If you want to find out if someone, anyone, is being ideologically coherent, take their posting history and subject it to that checklist. If any of those come back as "NOT PRESENT" instead of "CHECK", then you know that their train has either gone off the rails or never been in contact with the rails of material reality.

I contend that when the libertarians put their group through that self-test above - if they dare - they will get the error "NOT PRESENT" on points 1 and 3, and the same error will happen with most of the parties which describe themselves as 'social democratic'.

[Decky]

Someone dying of cancer with no money for medication is not free.

Someone homeless and freezing to death is not free.

Someone unemployed and starving is not free.

That is unless you have a welfare state, oh look at that, those people suddenly have more freedom as a direct result of state intervention.

[Rei Murasame]

You cannot really have that conversation with them until they actually give an answer to the end-part of my previous post. Otherwise you might as well be talking a different language, since it seems that libertarians have principles that are not grounded in or responsive to material results.

[Decky]

You cannot have really that conversation with them until they actually give an answer to the end-part of my previous post. Otherwise you might as well be talking a different language, since it seems that libertarians have principles that are not grounded in material results.

Libertarians ideas are not grounded in reality let alone material results. I just want to see what they will say.

No doubt people being treated on the NHS, living in a council house and working in the public sector would "freer" if they were dead in a ditch.