Message from @Burnside
Discord ID: 282402146563915788
@Post-Mortem Boredom Fun theory, in practice it'd almost definitely fall into a terrifying feudalism without even the pretense of nobility and ethics.
You sound like a commie
I'm not.
By a combination of inertia and corruptability of human nature an AnCap society would almost immediately develop strangling monopolies or oligopolies which would then create a capitalist aristocracy.
so if humans are corruptible why have a government?
Compromise.
A government that focuses on ideals over pragmatics will eventually be corrupted but slower.
>compromise
no thanks
Someone caption this
Will nazism be tolerated within anticom?
hopefully not
As far as i know, Anticom doesn't fall under any specific political spectrum/ideology other than "We hate commies"
^
That ^
we accept natsoc and ancap and whatever
as long as you aren't a commie
socialism and communism are barely different
Socialism is fuzzy idealistic communism without the hard authoritarian controls up top, it's plug-n-play communism modules
Some of it is tolerable but later stages of installation have unacceptable features and glitches
none of it is tolerable
you amuse me, child
socialists should get the chopping block right along with the commies
socialism is too fuzzy, where do you draw the line?
as to what we should be fighting against, socialism is the line, communism is just even worse socialism
Define the lower bound of is/isnot socialism please
the state ownership of the means of production
i guess lower being Sanders
That's classical marxism and a core feature of straight communism, try again
that's your definition. i've asked many socialists what socialism is and they all give me different answers because muh "it wasn't real socialism"
I think your idea of socialists is actually commies and your idea of commies is stalinism
there is massive overlap between socialism and communism
I run on textbook definitions and more tranditional academic delineations
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and workers' control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim to establish them.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]
What you're saying is "communism and stalinism" which do heavily overlap
that text book definition is still agreeing with what i said