[Palmyrene]

Whose boots do you imagine I lick?

Considering your defense of Christianity, probably God.

[SolarCross]

Considering your defense of Christianity, probably God.

Wrong again! Third time lucky?

[Palmyrene]

Say @B0ycey, do you fancy yourself as a visual learner?

[Palmyrene]

Wrong again! Third time lucky?

Well I'll try. Probably your and other people's property.

[Julian658]

People are not equal, so some form of economic hierarchy is natural and desirable.

I want to live in a society where you are rewarded for working harder and smarter than the next person, and punished for being lazy and making stupid decisions. I don't want to carry the dead-weight, I want to help the dead-weight carry themselves.

Finally a voice of reason among all the BS in the thread!!!
There is no such thing as equality. Even identical twins achieve differently.

[Julian658]

Oh please. Left unity is for losers anyways. The only people who care about it are Marxist-Leninists who want to assure anarchists that they won't betray them again.

The term leftist is a misnomer just as much as a rightist is. Communists have more in common with your ilk than anarchists. Both rightists and communists force people into labor camps, genocide millions, and threaten to wipe humanity off the face of the Earth all in justification for "the state".

Both of y'all can go suck my dick. If you're willing to service your masters you can service me. I assure it won't lower your dignity any more than it has now.

Typical antifa lingo!

[Palmyrene]

Typical antifa lingo!

Did you read anything I said?

What is antifa about it?

[Palmyrene]

Finally a voice of reason among all the BS in the thread!!!

I don't think you know the context of the thread at all.

I think you either A. was bored from staying in the same thread for weeks and decided to try this one out or B. followed me here.

You're not contributing much either way.

[Julian658]

Did you read anything I said?

What is antifa about it?

Vulgar language, anarchy, anger, feeling oppressed 24/7

[Julian658]

I don't think you know the context of the thread at all.

I think you either A. was bored from staying in the same thread for weeks and decided to try this one out or B. followed me here.

You're not contributing much either way.

This thread caught my eye. I am always amused about the intellectuals that embrace socialism. They make very elegant remarks and often miss a very simple concept: There is no equality.

[SolarCross]

Well I'll try. Probably your and other people's property.

I lick my own boots? I wear sandals in summer as it happens. I do have a pair of boots but I have never licked them.

Perhaps you should give up on trying to guess reasons for hating people. You don't seem to be very good at it.

[Palmyrene]

Vulgar language, anarchy, anger, feeling oppressed 24/7

How is that specifically antifa?

What feeling oppression? When did I even mention feeling oppressed? Quote me an exact statement where I said what you're implying.

This thread caught my eye. I am always amused about the intellectuals that embrace socialism. They make very elegant remarks and often miss a very simple concept: There is no equality.

It's a thread about anarchism not socialism and the OP is specifically criticizing anarchism so I'm not particularly sure what intellectuals you're referring to.

Pretty much everyone in this thread knows that there is no equality. The point is to make economic exchange as unexploitative and repriocitical as possible.

You've missed the whole point. I've even told you this before in the thread before.

[Palmyrene]

I lick my own boots? I wear sandals in summer as it happens. I do have a pair of boots but I have never licked them.

I meant that you worship the idea of property. It's one of your sacred cows.

Perhaps you should give up on trying to guess reasons for hating people. You don't seem to be very good at it.

I don't hate anyone, even statists and the whole "bootlicker" thing is tongue and cheek anyways.

I do hate systems though and tyranny is the worst system of them all.

[Unthinking Majority]

In capitalism and hierarchy however, you don't have do anything. You could be born into wealth and never have to do anything.

If you get wealthy, why shouldn't you have the right to give your family/children the best life possible? Or give your money to whomever you want? It's your money.

You could own property and leech off the money and work of other people.

You mean run a business.

You could make money by moving money.

If somebody makes money by investing in the markets, good for them. It takes smarts and skill to do it well over the long-term, and the markets are available to absolutely everyone so everyone can do it no matter the level of money they have. Warren Buffett started with nothing.

I've talked to homeless people who have worked for 72 years and haven't gotten anything in return for their hard work.

If you worked for 72 years and didn't get paid you're an idiot. If you didn't invest it well, well you might also be an idiot. Sometimes there's corruption and a rigged system in capitalist countries like the USA, like crony capitalism and corporate lobbying etc, and that needs to be fixed, but overall i believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome, rather than Marxist bullsh!t that 170 years later some still haven't figured out doesn't work.

If you work hard while making smart decisions, almost anyone can make good money in capitalism, and certainly anyone can make a decent living & live a good life. Maybe instead of resenting the successful we should start emulating them instead.

[Palmyrene]

If you get wealthy, why shouldn't you have the right to give your family/children the best life possible? Or give your money to whomever you want? It's your money.

It's money built off the backs of others or the exploitation of others as is the case for most people wealthy enough to consider passing said wealth to their children.

And it directly contradicts your implicit claim that capitalism is meritocratic. If your child can just have loads of money and resources despite not doing anything while someone who has worked since they were a child us homeless then there is a problem with the system.

It's not like you can't ensure a good future for all our children either, it's matter of capitalism and the state.

You mean run a business.

Calling it a business doesn't change the fact that it's leeching off of people for something as essential and basic as housing while putting in absolutely zero effort at all.

If somebody makes money by investing in the markets, good for them. It takes smarts and skill to do it well over the long-term, and the markets are available to absolutely everyone so everyone can do it no matter the level of money they have. Warren Buffett started with nothing.

Investing in markets takes luck, Warren Buffett said just as much in his books. It doesn't matter how well you calculate your investment in the end it's basically just gambling.

From that perspective there is no such thing as skill or smarts being put into investment. For ever Warren Buffett who got lucky there are billions of people who lost the game. And in the end, it requires practically no effort.

And it's still a game played mostly by the rich. People in wealth can just tank through losses while people in poverty either use a little of their money and get practically nothing or bet it all and generally lose due to not having appropriate market information. Remember that Warren Buffett had a mentor to help him with investing, most people don't have that luxury.

If you worked for 72 years and didn't get paid you're an idiot.

Who said they didn't get paid? The point is that they got payed little and weren't promoted despite their hard work and seniority (most of these homeless people were black so I assume race had something to do with it).

If you didn't invest it well, well you might also be an idiot. Sometimes there's corruption and a rigged system in capitalist countries like the USA, like crony capitalism and corporate lobbying etc, and that needs to be fixed, but overall i believe in equality of opportunity not equality of outcome, rather than Marxist bullsh!t that 170 years later some still haven't figured out doesn't work.

Crony capitalism is still capitalism and the natural result of it as is imperialism.

And I'm not a Marxist. Nothing of what I'm saying is Marxist and I'm not a believer of equality.

If you work hard while making smart decisions, almost anyone can make good money in capitalism, and certainly anyone can make a decent living & live a good life.

Given how many people who have worked hard and smart and didn't get anything, I'm going to say you're wrong.

Of course you'd say they weren't smart because they didn't succeed. But that's stupid. That's like saying losing a slot machine means you're dumb, it's not the fault of other people that the current system isn't meritocratic.

Maybe instead of resenting the successful we should start emulating them instead.

Great! Now I just need a rich dad with a company and I'll be set!

[Wellsy]

@Wellsy

Eh, Karl Marx's critique of Max Stirner leaves alot to be desired. He doesn't really get him. It's the same for Proudhon.

I think the sympathy to one or the other is likely based in how one takes the philosophical underpinnings of each thinker.

In regards to Proudhorn I haven't much of an opinion at this point but the same point above would apply in regards to the means in which they investigated the political economy. Marx seems to accuse Proudhorn of a kind of eclecticism that doesn't property criticize concepts to appropriate the partial truths of them into a whole.
Basically, he misses a crucial step to Marx's (as taken from Hegel) scientific method of ascending to the abstract notion or concrete universal (The commodity for Marx in Das Kapital) which then marks the beginning of a science.

And for example the ontological position of Stirner in regards to ideas I think is mistaken as many traditional forms of nominalism that only go as far as criticizing abstract generals (abstracting features/predicates which are common to all in order to group them). A key difference is to the extent Marx follows Hegel's idea of concrete universals.
Although it seems Marx is indebted to Stirner in part for his critique of Feuerbach such that it likely played a pivotal role in their rethinking of human essence/nature.

But maybe this is just playing into divide between Anarchists and Marxist communists. To which I can't say I'm familiar with the methods/means of understanding things scientifically in regards to prominent Anarchists and there are of course different schools of thought, although I am generally against the individualist strain within Anarchism as it seems more of an abstract individualism and counter to the individuality I see as a goal of communism.
Part of which has been due to the lack of exposure to discussions that go into detail rather than broad assertions of misunderstandings and misrepresentation. It's not something I find a good handle, but a historical animosity based on historical conflicts which ill feelings often breed contempt and insults.

[Palmyrene]

I think the sympathy to one or the other is likely based in how one takes the philosophical underpinnings of each thinker.

In regards to Proudhorn I haven't much of an opinion at this point but the same point above would apply in regards to the means in which they investigated the political economy. Marx seems to accuse Proudhorn of a kind of eclecticism that doesn't property criticize concepts to appropriate the partial truths of them into a whole.
Basically, he misses a crucial step to Marx's (as taken from Hegel) scientific method of ascending to the abstract notion or concrete universal (The commodity for Marx in Das Kapital) which then marks the beginning of a science.

I'm not particularly sure what exactly about Proudhon is "eclectic". Proudhon was arguably less utopian as well, since it wasn't attached to specifically communist economic assumptions—not to mention the fact that Proudhon's anti-capitalism and anti-governmentalism were simply aspects of the same critique. The critique of wage-slavery had been expressed in the strongest sorts of terms as early as Orestes Brownson's 1840 essay on the laboring classes.

Generally I find that Marx missed the entire point of Proudhon's theory despite reaching somewhat similar conclusions.

And for example the ontological position of Stirner in regards to ideas I think is mistaken as many traditional forms of nominalism that only go as far as criticizing abstract generals (abstracting features/predicates which are common to all in order to group them). A key difference is to the extent Marx follows Hegel's idea of concrete universals.
Although it seems Marx is indebted to Stirner in part for his critique of Feuerbach such that it likely played a pivotal role in their rethinking of human essence/nature.

I cannot understand anything you're saying right now sorry.

But maybe this is just playing into divide between Anarchists and Marxist communists. To which I can't say I'm familiar with the methods/means of understanding things scientifically in regards to prominent Anarchists and there are of course different schools of thought, although I am generally against the individualist strain within Anarchism as it seems more of an abstract individualism and counter to the individuality I see as a goal of communism.
Part of which has been due to the lack of exposure to discussions that go into detail rather than broad assertions of misunderstandings and misrepresentation. It's not something I find a good handle, but a historical animosity based on historical conflicts which ill feelings often breed contempt and insults.

I recommend you read Proudhon's What Is Property? and understand the concept of collective force.

[Unthinking Majority]

It's money built off the backs of others or the exploitation of others as is the case for most people wealthy enough to consider passing said wealth to their children.

Utter nonsense.

Calling it a business doesn't change the fact that it's leeching off of people for something as essential and basic as housing while putting in absolutely zero effort at all.

So if you own an apartment building how are you leeching off people, and how are you putting in zero effort? You have to manage the thing.

Investing in markets takes luck, Warren Buffett said just as much in his books. It doesn't matter how well you calculate your investment in the end it's basically just gambling.

From that perspective there is no such thing as skill or smarts being put into investment. For ever Warren Buffett who got lucky there are billions of people who lost the game. And in the end, it requires practically no effort.

Warren Buffett has been beating the market over and over and over again for over half a century. Beating the market consistently is extremely difficult. If you think he's done this based simply on luck you know little about Buffett or investing. He's a genius, and his methods take an extraordinary amount of research and analysis of the companies he invests in.

Remember that Warren Buffett had a mentor to help him with investing, most people don't have that luxury.

He sought out his mentor himself, after reading his mentor's books growing up. Warren Buffett can be your mentor too, he's written endlessly about his methods. Pick up a book or his annual company reports.

Given how many people who have worked hard and smart and didn't get anything, I'm going to say you're wrong.

Of course you'd say they weren't smart because they didn't succeed. But that's stupid. That's like saying losing a slot machine means you're dumb, it's not the fault of other people that the current system isn't meritocratic.

A slot machine is based entirely on luck. There's nothing lucky about studying your ass off in high school and college and making something of yourself. Sure some are born into better situations (families) than others, and I'm all for having social programs etc. so that everyone at least has the opportunity to fulfill their potential, like access to decent education etc.

Let's face it, many people will succeed or fail based on whether they have supportive parents who raised them in a healthy environment & who instill good work/study habits (or even were wealthy), or whether they had crappy parents. People who don't live up to much can usually blame themselves or their crappy parents for sucking. Sometimes bad luck legit hits people, and i'm all for social programs funded by the rich to help those people get back on their feet.

[Palmyrene]

Utter nonsense.

You just can't argue against it. Money made off of exploitation is comparable to blood money. You have no idea how many lives you've destroyed and continue to destroy to reach and maintain the livelihood you have now. It is all at the expense of others.

Anarchism is about sacrifice for oneself. Hierarchy is about sarcificing others for yourself.

So if you own an apartment building how are you leeching off people, and how are you putting in zero effort? You have to manage the thing.

What's there to manage? All you do is collect rent. If you're sneaky enough, you don't even have to pay taxes. I assume you'd call tax evasion "smart" as well and call other losers for not breaking the law?

[Quotr]
Warren Buffett has been beating the market over and over and over again for over half a century. Beating the market consistently is extremely difficult. If you think he's done this based simply on luck you know little about Buffett or investing. He's a genius, and his methods take an extraordinary amount of research and analysis of the companies he invests in. [/quote]

Silly @Unthinking Majority, you don't "beat" the market, the market helps you. You see, the market is a god, a random god, one that may bless you or punish you arbitrarily. It doesn't matter what you do or how much you analyze, if the market decides to screw you over, it will.

Warren Buffett literally says this in the first chapter on his book on value investing.

He sought out his mentor himself, after reading his mentor's books growing up. Warren Buffett can be your mentor too, he's written endlessly about his methods. Pick up a book or his annual company reports.

Well his mentor wasn't going to help him out specifically because he set out for him. By this point in his life, Warren Buffett has been given several opportunities that lead him to be a leading scholar in many higher education institutions all before he even met his soon to be mentor.

And reading self help books isn't going to provide the same help as having an actual person tell you when what you're doing is wrong. Warren Buffett practically had a free financial advisor for a good portion of his investing career. Not everyone can afford a financial advisor.

A slot machine is based entirely on luck. There's nothing lucky about studying your ass off in high school and college and making something of yourself.

Nowadays that isn't enough. I've seen people with PhDs working at McDonald's. College is about networking and connections and you can't get those if you're some nobody no one cares about.

Nowadays people can't even afford to go to college.

Sure some are born into better situations (families) than others, and I'm all for having social programs etc. so that everyone at least has the opportunity to fulfill their potential, like access to decent education etc.

Those kinds of things tend to backwards after a while. The boomers were given their amazing life via loads of social programs and policies and then they spent the greater portion of their lives removing said programs and policies.

You need to get rid of the whole system.

Let's face it, many people will succeed or fail based on whether they have supportive parents who raised them in a healthy environment & who instill good work/study habits (or even were wealthy), or whether they had crappy parents. People who don't live up to much can usually blame themselves or their crappy parents for sucking. Sometimes bad luck legit hits people, and i'm all for social programs funded by the rich to help those people get back on their feet.

It doesn't boil down to just parents.

Crappy parents are often crappy specifically because of the circumstances they find themselves in. The drunken, abusive unemployed father has become a stereotype. That's how prevalent it is. If you want to know why millenials are so afraid of having kids it's because that.

[ingliz]

Anarchism is about sacrifice

'Anarchy' in Syria (Rojava):

The PKK’s ideology is Stalinist.

The Democratic Union Party (PYD), a Kurdish nationalist group linked to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), has effectively become the ruling party imposing it’s rule over the peasants and workers

The "Rojava Experiment"?

There is no socialism, or socialist revolution in Rojava. They are too busy with the bourgeois revolution (Two-stage revolutionary theory) building gaols and representative democracy.