[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /cyb/ - 33897



File: 1469306588325-0.png (229.44 KB, 300x150, 1417684785234.png)

File: 1469306588325-1.png (45.31 KB, 200x200, wayne-price-do-anarchists-believe-in-freedom.pdf)

File: 1469306588325-2.png (153.44 KB, 200x200, primitivism_critique.epub)

No.33897

Autism-free zone edition.

The last thread had little to no discussion on the events in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Let's try to keep things on topic this time, because I'm interested to hear what mah comrades on Lainchan have to say about the recent acts of direct action against the State, and having a rational discussion about it on any other imageboard is pretty much impossible.

Also, while this is a general thread, I'm posting William Gillis' critique of anarcho-primitivism. Gillis kind of sucks, but his critique is spot-on and it segues into a general problem with anarchists today: Too many anarchists are either ignorant of tech and especially cyber-security - often to their detriment - or are outright against it. So I want to open up the discussion on technology and anarchism as well.

Relevant articles:
http://anarchistnews.org/content/clarity-rupture-dallas-and-los-angeles
http://anarchistnews.org/content/deadliest-terror-attack-sf-history-happened-100-years-ago-today

Sources for newfags:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/emma-goldman-anarchism-and-other-essays#toc3
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/larry-law-revolutionary-self-theory
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html

Remember: No platform for fascists.

  No.33898

File: 1469306753068-0.png (798.82 KB, 200x200, piece now.pdf)

File: 1469306753068-1.png (3.72 MB, 200x200, pirate_radio.pdf)

File: 1469306753068-2.png (4.91 MB, 200x200, Squatter's Handbook.pdf)

Also here are some cool bonus .pdfs on praxis. I have a huge list of other stuff but I need to work on consolidating all the texts together into a .zip

  No.33899

File: 1469307150855-0.png (71.15 KB, 200x200, 20150612-xf_layout_web.pdf)

File: 1469307150855-1.png (222.04 KB, 200x200, Anarchotranshuman_Vol2_Science_As_Desire.epub)

File: 1469307150855-2.png (5.24 MB, 200x200, Haraway-CyborgManifesto-1 - Copy.pdf)

And here are some relevant texts on anarchism and technology from a more pro-tech perspective.

More stuff can be found here, but they're all imposed .pdfs so unless you want to go through the trouble to convert them to something readable in digital form, they'll need to be printed out: http://anarchotranshuman.org/

  No.33933

I live right by the church where they are doing the funeral for one of the Baton Rouge officers. Police everywhere from all 50 states and even some from Canada and Mexico. Helicopters flying in formation. 1000s here.

  No.33936

File: 1469314283524.png (12.56 MB, 200x150, tsgh.png)

>>33897
>I'm interested to hear what mah comrades on Lainchan have to say about the recent acts of direct action against the State
I'm reminded of the racist origins of gun control from a time where class conflict was far more synonymous with race; http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/alton-sterling-philando-castile-2nd-amendment-guns/490301/
Nowadays living in post-Recession America, the distinction merely feels obfuscated; dissonant, maybe. http://www.vice.com/read/the-alt-rights-fear-of-a-black-planet
Proponents for the NRA have said that they ain't gotta say shit in the wake of these murders, yet they fly the thin blue line in solidarity with the dead cops in Dallas; I think such complacency with State actors is inexcusable no matter how tragic.
>Gillis kind of sucks
I'm in total agreement there.. especially when it comes to anarcho-transhumanist thought, it's a pity he seems to be the only one publicly extrapolating on the idea as nildicit put it, "political transhumanism is a deep, dark rabbit hole. https://ensorcel.org/political-transhumanism-is-a-deep-dark-rabbit-hole/
>Too many anarchists are either ignorant of tech and especially cyber-security - often to their detriment - or are outright against it.
This is part of the reason why I was interested in the riot tech general: >>30869
You guys hear about the Individuals Tending Towards Savagery being back again? They've claimed responsibility for the murder of some university head. For anyone that doesn't know who they are, ITS are a Mexican group of self-proclaimed "eco-terrorists" that generally subscribe to an odd mixture of anarcho-primitivist and illegalist (or individualist-anarchist) sensibilities. I remember they mailbombed a nanotech firm back in 2012; http://www.nature.com/news/nanotechnology-armed-resistance-1.11287
You can read more on them here:
https://www.wired.com/2013/03/mexican-ecoterrorism/
http://ritualmag.com/toward-savagery/
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/individualists-tending-toward-the-wild-communiques

I think Individuals Tending Towards Savagery are the crux of that aforementioned tech-illiterate problem.

  No.33947

File: 1469317455110.png (82.78 KB, 171x200, i dont need sex.jpg)

About all this "no platform for facists" thing:

What I could understand from the first pdf on OP is that we cannot prohibit someone's free speech, even if they are nazis, because it would be against our core values, and no one is being actually hurt from facist vitriol alone. The issue actually is when the facists start to take action (e.g. abusing an individual, attacking a non-facist reunion, etc.) that something must be done, even if in a machiavellian way. This may include from beatings, forcefully removing facist people from the goverment, up to stabbings, shootings, arson and an all out civil war.

It isn't pretty or ethical, it's just what a sane and moral mind would do.

  No.33949

>>33947
When was the last time you saw an internet discussion where fascist and/or pol types were involved that didn't turn into a complete shitfest and shouting match? Freedom of speech does not extend to the right to express yourself with graffiti on my front door; in a similar fashion, Lainchan and other sites are private property and the mods have every right to remove whatever they want if it's a detriment to intelligent discussion. There's an entire internet out there where idiots can spew whatever they want. It's a different matter if the state is repressing their freedom of expression.

  No.33952

>>33947
I came to the same conclusions though for different reasons. It's not a moral imperative for me. It's just a practical option. I can't actually stand over people and make sure they never say anything I don't like and societies can't do this until whatever it is they're attempting to suppress is very weak anyway. There are still plenty of nazis in Germany despite the fact that it's illegal.

  No.33961

>>33947
refusing to give someone a platform =/= limiting their free speech. If someone has an anarchist radio show do they have to let any fascist who wants on? Do they have to take and broadcast calls from fascists? It's not the same issue as free speech at all.

  No.33964

>>33933
fellow baton rouge poster here! definitely a massive response to the cop killings. I'm an LSU student and I noticed that an official vigil was provoked not by the Sterling shooting but by the cop killing.
anyway, massively support Long's action. Protesting will never even dent police brutality, but killing cops shut down entire sections of the city's State apparatus.

  No.33965

>>33964
I (try to) understand your disgust toward state's agents, but I have got to criticize your way of thinking. Shooting policemen has little effect on the power of the state, because the state will, just like a big corporation, contract more people for the job. You can't shoot the policeman without shooting the individual under the badge, so you end up affecting his whole family and friends. Also, this will probably lead up to more violent responses due to frightened cops, leading to more innocent deaths. On and on, you will just end up hurting more innocents, but not even scratching the state.

There is a caveat: shooting a cop if he is a murderer or as means to an end is a justifiable action. If you were to start a violent revolution or killing of politicians or any other kind of scum, you would probably have to kill any officer who stood in your way.

Anyway, take care.

  No.33967

>>33965
I don't think lone-wolf cop shootings will overturn the state or not have negative consequences, but violent attacks against the state are a step in the right direction nonetheless. The state and its tentacles only respond to violence to their property, including their agents such as cops. These attacks did scratch the state, as is evident from police response and calls to adapt to these attacks, while nonviolent protest slaps more coats of paint on the state.
It is undeniable that a cop is an "individual" who can be "good," but casualties must arise in a protracted low-level war against the working class. Slave-owners were individuals with families too, and they were rightly killed in revolts.
" If you were to start a violent revolution or killing of politicians or any other kind of scum, you would probably have to kill any officer who stood in your way," is precisely the case. What remains is to buttress these attacks with a real revolutionary basis, mass (social media) popular support, strategic and tactical planning. Those who shrink at what Gavin Long or Micah Johnson did can come to support violence when it can cause revolutionary change, or were never interested in change in the first place.

  No.33968

>>33961
It doesn't matter if it's the state or private interests doing it. So long as it's widespread it's a real problem and the entire idea behind "no platform" is that everybody does it.

  No.33970

>>33968
The point is that there are no consequences for simply saying "gas the jews, we must unify the nation under the nazi party.", people should just refuse to broadcast such views. If people with these views can create their own platform I have no problem with that.
I suppose it a matter of how far you take the "no platform" idea. I don't think, for instance that nazis should be banned from using the airwaves, gathering in public, or being on the internet in general. If I ran a chan or a message board for instance, I would not allow it to become a space where people with fascist views could congregate and organize.

  No.33971

>>33970
>If people with these views can create their own platform I have no problem with that.
You should have. It's far more damaging to your cause than allowing them on yours. I see things like a guy making a natsoc thread and I laugh. I see places like /pol/ and I worry. They are in much worse shape being on a wider platform where perspective is maintained.

  No.33972

>>33971
/pol/ is people using 4chan as a platform, nazis didn't create and don't run 4chan. It allows them to present their views to a broader audience of people who mainly use the site for some other reason. I'm not so worried about stormfront or other sites run specifically by and for fascists since you have to be at least somewhere on the path to being a nazi already to even have an interest in those sites.

I think natsoc threads are laughable too, and if the community can essentially ignore them it isn't really a problem. If I ran the site and it were just one occational thread, it would depend on the specifics as to how I would deal with it. If someone wants to have a discussion in good faith that's fine. If someone is clearly trying to propagandize for their cause that's a different issue. If natsoc threads start becoming more prominent I would consider it a problem that needed to be dealt with.

  No.33974

>>33972
/pol/ got kicked off 4chan a long while ago now and it didn't do anything to lessen the problem. They just went somewhere else taking half of /v/ with them. Stormfront are more of a problem. We just talk about /pol/ more because they're much closer to us. /pol/ is also a weird case due to how it started but that's only minorly relevant these days.

The thing is they get to present their views to the wider audience anyway. They just do it ((differently)) and you'd hope that this would lower their ability to reach people but it doesn't pan out like that. They're better off doing things like talking about immigration or capitalism or whatever rather than just going "Hi, I'm a nazi.". Banning these wider opinions isn't practical. If you ban, for instance, supporting capitalism you just ensure that your own audience is small and most people are set in their ways and aren't budging. They're a registered democrat/republican or their countries equivalent and that's the extent of their political leanings. The big exception to this is kids and they're often draw to the allure of secret forbidden things.

Despite stormfront being an isolated community they're still going and they're still getting new people and when they do they have a wonderful little isolated community for them. It's so much better when everybody can keep an eye on them. It means their numbers aren't exaggerated by the belief that people support them but are unable to speak out. It means when they do come to talk to the wider audience people know who's speaking, instead of these smiling "I'm not racist but" organisations like the BNP.

>If someone is clearly trying to propagandize for their cause that's a different issue.

Yeah. It's not actually that much of a problem with natsocs, they're just unlikely to change minds towards such fringe opinions so quickly. It's annoying as hell though.

>If natsoc threads start becoming more prominent I would consider it a problem that needed to be dealt with.

This is very unlikely to happen unless you already have a userbase that's predisposed to it. Deliberate invasions where suddenly 10 new ips start talking about it are another issue.

  No.33976

>>33974
It's not difficult at all to distinguish between /pol/ trash and actual discussion, it's basically just a different brand of shitposting. Trying to say "oh we can't ban them because we'd have to ban the ideas they talk about" is silly, those ideas are pretty easily and clearly discussed all over without the discussion producing crazed lunacy.

I think the problem is twofold, that /pol/ is able to spread their message to impressionable young people by dressing it up as "oh it's just a joke, we're just making racist MEMES, we're not actually racists. You boys sure do love memes don't you?" but their other problem is a more cultural one on boards like this. /pol/ can change the way conversations are held by normalizing fascist ideas and whining about people not listening to them. You can see this really clearly with the derailment of >>33378 where just one dude acting edgy changed the conversation from discussion of oppressive regimes to a "wait you people think some refugees don't deserve to die? That's silly all sand-people are bad". /pol/ drags every internet discussion to the right by virtue of throwing as much nonsense into the fray that people have to address at least some of it and by trying not to get banned just like with pansy-ass admins here end up reaching a "middle-ground" of not full on /pol/ but still bigotry.

The answer is the the same answer to child porn, you know it when you see it, and it's the admin's responsibility to ban it. If they don't, they're doing a bad job of running the site.

  No.33980

So how did 4chan /pol/ become a place where the discussion is by and large from a far right point of view anyway?

>They just went somewhere else.

This is still a good result since they likely did not all go to the same place, and some of the less committed users probably just forgot about the whole thing, and stopped their journey to full blown nazi cancer. Breaking their community down into smaller chucks is important. It isolates them into places increasingly less relevant to broader culture (8chan is much less popular than 4chan for instance), and each time they move they loose some people along the way.

Even if stormfront was worse (I think there is good reason to believe it's much less influential on broader Internet culture than /pol/ though), there is nothing anyone can do about it directly apart from actually limiting free speech. Obviously I expect fascists are interested in giving their fellow fascists a platform. I would encourage people to do whatever they can to disrupt the existence of storefront though.

>>33974
>If you ban, for instance, supporting capitalism you just ensure that your own audience is small and most people are set in their ways and aren't budging.
In my view national socialism is simply beyond the pale. I'm fine if people are set in their ways of not being a nazi and don't feel the need to spend any mental energy entertaining nazi ideas. It's not just nazism either, I also think people should refuse to allow their sites to become a jumping off point for Isis. People don't seem to seem to do as much hand wringing over baning or otherwise preventing pro isis talk. Is nazism somehow more reasonable?

Baning also isn't the only tool here. There are other ways of confounding the ability of groups using your site as a platform. Not making a 'containment board' for them in the first place would be a good start. Using your power as a board owner to encourage people the ridicule and rejection of such views is another. I'm sure there are other such methods that I'm not thinking of right away.

I'm also not interested in giving national socialism a platform on my (hypothetical) website from the simple point of view that I put my time and resources into it and just hate nazis.

  No.33986

>>33976
>Trying to say "oh we can't ban them because we'd have to ban the ideas they talk about" is silly
Nobody said that. I'm talking just about the ideas. Shitposting is a different matter.

>Those ideas are pretty easily and clearly discussed all over without the discussion producing crazed lunacy.

No, they're not. People discussing natsoc stuff tends to provoke strong reactions everywhere. They are literally nazis.

>their other problem is a more cultural one on boards like this. /pol/ can change the way conversations are held

Yep, so can anyone and there's not really much we can do about it.

>The answer is the the same answer to child porn, you know it when you see it, and it's the admin's responsibility to ban it.

The big difference is it's not literally the exploitation of children. That is genuinely in and of itself an abomination that cannot be tolerated in the service of a higher cause.

>>33980
>So how did 4chan /pol/ become a place where the discussion is by and large from a far right point of view anyway?
Ironic shitposting. In the early days it really was mostly ironic but, of course, there were a few who took it seriously and they would post and be welcomed as more irony. Cut to the present and you have /pol/. It's a weird because it's pretty much internet only phenomena. Mistaking the presence of irony is a lot harder IRL.

>some of the less committed users probably just forgot about the whole thing

They didn't forget that they got purged and while it's true that some probably walked away half of /v/ followed them. People who are on the fence are going to see it as an injustice.

>Breaking their community down into smaller chucks is important.

It doesn't really go down like that. /pol/ didn't split after if left for 8chan. It's split since then over moderation but that's just lucky not something we had control over. Even then it's not a big deal because the community isn't actually split. There are plenty of users end up posting on both of the split boards and so the communities still share news and plans and so on. They're also connected in a similar fashion to the other communities around them meaning cutting these lines of communication is unreasonably hard.

>there is nothing anyone can do about it directly apart from actually limiting free speech.

There's nothing anyone can do about it. They will speak as they please in their own circles and they'll tailor their speech in others to slip past the censors.

>In my view national socialism is simply beyond the pale.

Yeah it's a very extreme example. Still, it's a real problem.

>People don't seem to seem to do as much hand wringing over baning or otherwise preventing pro isis talk.

Well, it never comes up. The same goes for them, again, it's an extreme example and the physical problems like the violence cannot be tolerated but trying to stop them from speaking doesn't help.

>Not making a 'containment board' for them in the first place would be a good start.

So they post on the other boards?

>Using your power as a board owner to encourage people the ridicule and rejection of such views is another.

Why would you need to? Also mods don't have that much more power than users in this regard.

>I'm sure there are other such methods that I'm not thinking of right away.

There aren't. Especially not in anonymity. Bans can be evaded. Deleted posts can be spammed. Even if you make a perfect filter for natsoc propaganda they'll post about how immigration is a problem and if you agree you can come talk with like minded people on /pol/.

  No.33988

>>33986
I think your crusade for censorship and idea suppression is myopic, hypocritical, and ineffective. Racism doesn't happen becuase people talk about it.

I think jewish people should be killed. Regardless of whether that's an authentic opinion I have, why do you take such deep emotional turmoil in seeing it expressed? Do you think it will influence you just because you happen to see it?

  No.33989

>>33988
Did you reply to the wrong person? I'm advocating quite the opposite and I'm not quite sure how you could have misconstrued it. Speak as you please.

  No.33991

>>33989
Yes, it was meant for >>33976 .

Wasn't an intentional misdirection. I promise. :^3

  No.34005

A little off topic of freedom of speech, but I'd like to get some outside opinions.

I have read plenty of anarchist publications, starting years ago with the Anarchist FAQ, and I have an enormous overlap in beliefs with anarchist individuals. Equality for all people, obviously, and the destruction normative hierarchies. However, there is a major belief that I cannot come to terms with; the complete removal of the state (a core tenant of anarchism, obviously). I believe it is possible to institute a state in which there is no oppression. Officials are elected or enabled by the people to help lead a fair federation of states.

As an Australian citizen, our major parties are both disgustingly right, and our most powerful minority party is the Greens, of whom I still do not agree with a large majority of their policies. Having met several of the Greens party politicians, I can see that they agree with a good portion of my beliefs but are just working within the system to change the establishment. I do not think their approach is extreme enough, but I do realise the benefit of working within the system. As of yet I do not realise the practicality of a violent revolution. I just cannot see it achieving change.

I want to stress that this opinion comes from a privileged individual. I have been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and am an active part of the queer community, but I am easily male cis-passing of a middle class background and have a supportive family and friend group.

I don't want anyone to feel as if they are responsible for educating me, but if you would like to shed some light on my questions, that would be much appreciated.

  No.34026

>>34005
Anarchists are typically against all forms of hierarchy, don't you think having an elected official necessitates hierarchy?

How would you stop an elected leader who, once given power, uses that power to increase their power?

  No.34027

File: 1469412336317.png (674.69 KB, 200x200, homagecatalonia.pdf)

>>34005
>I believe it is possible to institute a state in which there is no oppression.
Most people who subscribe to any flavor of anarchism post-Spanish Civil War believe that the State is synonymous with Capitalism. This is usually where the line is drawn in the sectarianism that is often complained about within the Left for damn-well nearly a century. Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists absolutely love the idea of revolution as they see little reason to even figure out how to implement a communist society (one without oppression) until after the State has been overthrown or at the very least handed over to its workers through more peaceful, democratic means (like what happened with Venezuela). To MLs and MLMs, economic liberty is equal to social liberty; anarchists on the other hand view social liberty as a finality where economic liberty is only one facet of liberty itself. Anarchists don't want to remove the State; they wish to ensure the State's purposes become irrelevant by creating an anarchist society within - one that runs parallel to it. This is made evident from Catalonia during the inter-war period to Rojava since the Arab Spring. Anarchists are always retaliating to the coercive nature of any given State; they've never "been" the oppressors - they only seem that way to those whose eyes have been kept shut. Conceptually, anarchism works best in areas lacking severe government oversight (duh), so working within the system in an effort it change it is merely a lifelong exercise in futility in that respect.

  No.34040

>>34005
Many Anarchists believe in replacing the functions of the state with direct democracy. I personally believe that citizens should be able to propose bills which are passed in a monthly vote, if at the communal level, or taken by a strictly moderated and largely powerless representative to any higher level, say the council of a federation or union of communes. This level of abstraction is important because it ensures that ballot counting only takes place in groups of only 1000+ people and still makes authority impossible.

>I want to stress that this opinion comes from a privileged individual

I don't know about the other people in this thread but, I think that the experiences and constitution of the individual matter more that the groups they belong to. Your disorders and identities matter even less in this case because you have chosen to remain anonymous.

  No.34049

>>33986
So do you oppose the idea of attempting to break up natsoc outposts where they crop up on principle, or do you think that there is no point, or both?

If you think that containment boards are effective on some level why not just have /pol/ and /nazi/ (somewhat analogous /tv/ and /mlp/ maybe), instead of allowing boards ostensibly for the discussion of politics in general to be largely controlled by one particular view point.
It's not like this can't be done. If people were trying to make /mu/ into a board where nazis discuss politics by shitposting and spaming and ban evading it wouldn't work, because the community rejects out of hand that obviously nazi politics are only very distantly related to music at best. No one wastes a second worrying about if it's hypocritical, because it's totally off topic. If it can be collectively decided that a topic obviously has no place being discussed somewhere than it can be more or less removed effectively.

From your description of how /pol/ happened, do you believe that there was nothing that could have been done at any point, or simply that it's too far gone now? What if nazi discussion started cropping up more and more here? Do you think there would be nothing that could or should be done to prevent lainchan from becoming a natsoc outpost.

If open pedophilia can be moderated away why is it impossible to stop nazism getting a foot hold in internet communities. And I don't even mean posting cp, just people discussing their pedophilia is effectively forced out or the community in most places because people simply reject it as beyond the pale. People do not generally waste time debating the potential merits of pedophilia with pedophiles.
Hell, even a certain level of reasonable discussion can be achieved through moderation on chans, even if it's difficult. Why is the far right something that's impossible to force out of a community, at least to the extent that they don't control the terms of the discussion.

  No.34050

>>33988
>Racism doesn't happen becuase people talk about it.
It is normalized by people talking about it. It emboldens people to act on their racist beliefs. It allows racists to organize and collaborate on broader schemes. If racism becomes more and more acceptable to talk about openly in American culture, do you think this would have no real effect?
People who have racist inclinations should feel that there is something wrong with how they view the world by the community around them ridiculing such beliefs and dismissing them as unworthy of consideration. It is disingenuous to act as if this is some intellectually stultifying thing. You aren't being intellectually dishonest by dismissing


>deep emotional turmoil in seeing it expressed

I experience no emotional turmoil about seeing someone just express anything. I would like to prevent nazis from having a foothold on relatively mainstream media. Whether or not nazi views are accepted into the discussion in a place changes the overall political discourse in the culture. Imagine the effect it would have if CNN just started having open klansmen as pundits weighing in on the issues every day, as if it were a point of view as reasonable as any other.
There are certain point of view that it is reasonable to just force out of a community out of hand. Do we really need to have endless bad-faith debates about 'scientific racism' and jews controlling the world economy as if they are actually intellectually stimulating or add something valuable on any level?

If I run an online community, it isn't my responsibility to make it a safe space for any viewpoint at all. I wouldn't be hypocritical for pushing nazism off the site, because I believe nazism should be pushed out of the discourse everywhere, which is not the same thing as censorship. Censorship would be me trying to ban the sale of Mein Kampf, the publication of nazi newspapers, or calling for the arrest of people who express nazi views. A book store that chooses not to sell nazi propaganda magazines is not acting as a censor. This is not some semantic game I'm playing. In one case nazis are kicked out of a place because they aren't wanted there by the community, in the other case (censorship) they are prevented from expressing their views by law and face consequences other than being shown the door.

  No.34080

>>33988
We ban shitposting when the poster has nothing to actually contribute they're simply trying to derail things. Why should we stop and say "well racist shitposting is okay, because freedom of speech and all that"

  No.34090

>>34050
>You aren't being intellectually dishonest by dismissing

I am the cyber nazi guy, and to me tgis sounds desperate.

When I shown scientific OBJECTIVE evidence that races and genotypes of homo sappiens are different, not only in anatomy of skeletons, but also in hormones and brain physiology, the guy from your circles only replied with "fuck you" and "scientific racism".

Science can't be racist, it is only objective and describing reality of situation.
If reality is racist, then so be it. Earth circles around the Sun, and Sun circles around the Black hole in center of this galaxy but yet nobody is frustrated about those facts of life, so why be about the reality about differences in races?

You are showing how desperate you are when you are dismissing this opinion as wrong. You dont want to continue this discussion because my side is backed up by evidence and logic, and yours with wishful thibking of equality.

You aren't being intelectually dishonest though, just really really desperate to hold your narrative as superior, and my as unworthy of even mentioning.

  No.34091

>>34049
>So do you oppose the idea of attempting to break up natsoc outposts where they crop up on principle, or do you think that there is no point, or both?
The second implies the first. I'm very practical. Chief among my principles is to be effective. It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if they won't work.

>why not just have /pol/ and /nazi/

At the time I don't think anyone thought it through so far. Also, thinking it through, it just wasn't really necessary. Nobody wanted to ironicly shitpost anymore and that's all /pol/ was ever used for.

>If it can be collectively decided that a topic obviously has no place being discussed somewhere than it can be more or less removed effectively.

You will have a lot more trouble doing this for boards as a whole. Sure they'll post on /pol/ rather than /mu/ but if you got rid of /pol/ they'd just post on /b/ or, for instance, make threads about cyber-fascism on /cyb/. The problem with the whole idea of "removing" them is that they're not actually gone.

>do you believe that there was nothing that could have been done at any point

Back in the early days perhaps but not in a practical sense. The big thing to remember is that /pol/ wasn't really the problem. The problem was nazis. It just happened to attract them, in a really weird way that also helped them recruit but that's by the by.

>simply that it's too far gone now?

No! Most of the members of /pol/ might be too far gone. The only way they're going to stop being nazis is by dying of old age but if you want nazis to end you can't ignore the community as a whole. Kinda, big secret, natsoc is dying anyway and has been for decades but these things take time. This isn't really a matter of if it will end but when and how.

>What if nazi discussion started cropping up more and more here?

I'd wonder why. That should not just happen. Still, I'd be willing to talk with them. I already know they exist. I'm not going to lose my shit because they're in front of me. It's very hard to imagine this happening without foul play though.

>If open pedophilia can be moderated away, why is it impossible to stop nazism

The two are not alike. Pedophila communities are ultimately based around sexual urges that aren't exactly a choice often due to their own childhood abuse. They become pedos and then find a community far, far more than vice versa, often acting nearly alone. They don't follow the usual rules for communities/views spreading. As such they can survive despite that fact that open pedophilia is very weak, weak enough that society can effectively silence it even if we can't do it perfectly on the wired.

>Why is the far right something that's impossible to force out of a community

Everyone is impossible to force out if they are determined enough to be there, at least online. Also, forcing them out needn't be impossible to be a bad thing (it's a lot more possible IRL), it still leaves us with a problem.

  No.34092

>>34050
>do you think this would have no real effect?
I think it would make it obvious how few they were. I think it would cause the "I'm not racist but" people to take a closer look at what they are. It would mean that their communities were more open to the mainstream meaning more extreme views are less likely to form and that people could be more aware of them. Less worry that a politician is secretly racist. They might just tell you. I must stress, acceptable does not mean liked or even respected, politicians will probably still lie (shock horror).

>People who have racist inclinations should feel that there is something wrong with how they view the world by the community around them ridiculing such beliefs

That would be great but that's not what we have. The community around them don't ridicule them. They shout "Gas the kikes, race war now," and how could it be otherwise when other communities don't let them in?

>I would like to prevent nazis from having a foothold on relatively mainstream media.

Mission accomplished! I think anyway, they say they aren't nazis but it's so hard to be sure when they won't just tell me. Nazi media won't be mainstream until being a nazi is mainstream and that isn't going to happen. They're the fucking nazis! That doesn't mean someone else won't come along and kill a bunch of people under a different banner but there's not much can be done to stop that.

>Imagine the effect it would have if CNN just started having open klansmen as pundits weighing in on the issues every day

There is no world where CNN will want to do that.

>There are certain point of view that it is reasonable to just force out of a community out of hand.

Only when it will actually work.

>Do we really need to have endless bad-faith debates

Yes and no. Personally we don't need to do anything. Society doesn't strictly need debates but they're going to happen and that's not a bad thing. They'll be fighting uphill and the only thing it will normalise is that they lose. Especially because nowhere is perfect for the whole fair debate thing and they do have a massive social disadvantage as well. Mostly they'll lose there for the same reason they'll lose everywhere else.

>add something valuable on any level?

It's valuable because it means, when you're interacting with them openly in any context, you're wearing away at them. Nobody is asking you to be nice (well, here you have to be a little nice) though laughter is good too.

>If I run an online community

Do as you please. This stuff only becomes a problem when universalised and we need some places where things like this are done for other reasons. More than that it's your site, do what you think is right.

>pushed out of the discourse everywhere, which is not the same thing as censorship

The practical difference between these two is that with censorship you waste time failing to suppress their views, far more so since the internet came along. If we went full censorship on /pol/ it would just end up on tor (a super sekrit meme club!).

The problem is the concept of pushing them out *everywhere*. Until you can push them out of /pol/ then you're just pushing them to /pol/.

  No.34096

>>34092
>The problem is the concept of pushing them out *everywhere*. Until you can push them out of /pol/ then you're just pushing them to /pol/.
Thank you for telling me your plan.

You gave me enough conviction to make a chan spammer bot that will post threads about cyber nazism.

  No.34098

>>34096
Why? Because I pointed out that your enemies plans won't work and they should try talking to you instead? Where are you planning on pushing us to?

  No.34100

>>34096
Oh right I see. My point was that pushing you out of /pol/ was totally impossible, not least because you'd just make a new one. Not that that was the plan.

  No.34107

>>34026
I think this assumes the elected officials are working within a system in which once they are elected they cannot be removed as per the wishes of the people. In order for countries to operate in such an enormous fashion as they currently do, I do not think a completely direct democracy is a very efficient solution. It makes sense for individuals to represent the opinion of minority groups rather than take up an enormous amount of time of everyone's lives.

>>34040
I agree with you. See my above comment.

>>34027
This is an interesting take. Most of my offline anarchist friends apparently take a more ML stance. I will give that PDF a read when I have a chance.

  No.34137

I call myself a Marxist, but I believe deeply in dictatorship of the proletariat and the withering away of the state, which makes me feel I am on an anarchist position simultaneously. Am I an anarchist?

  No.34139

>>34137
Ancom here. Naw. Anarchism is literally the eroding of the state via direct action, not via a dictatorship or elected party. We believe in eating away at the state, inside out. The few successful communism societies used this tactic. I.e. Catalonia and Rojava

  No.34142

>>34139
That's what I mean by the withering away of the state. Also, I don't mean in the "dictatorship of the proletariat, i'll be the dictator, you be the proletariat" a la USSR, PRC, Albania, I mean people dictating their own lives, without the bondage of currency, scarcity, the market and the state.

  No.34144

>>34142
You are then misinterpreting the meaning behind this type of dictatorship. Working class dictates the rules for all others. What you describe however is individualism, an opposite.

  No.34189

>>34092
Maybe I moved the goal posts on myself a bit there. "No platform for fascism" doesn't mean for me that we need to remove every nazi opinion from everywhere. Just prevent media platforms from becoming mouth pieces and recruiting tools for these kinds of ideologies. Most likely this needs to done with preventive measures instead of waiting until its an obvious problem. For example some /cyber nazi general/ thread was deleted lately for apparently getting a bit out of hand. I think this was a good call even if it wasn't necessarily done from the "no platform" point of view.
I don't think this is easy by the way. To do it well takes a great deal of good judgment. Maybe a good strategy in general is to let nazis and there ilk to make themselves look bad for a little while before deleting their threads.

>Kinda, big secret, natsoc is dying anyway and has been for decades but these things take time. This isn't really a matter of if it will end but when and how.

I think this is a little optimistic. As I see it the impulse behind natsoc is a part of humanity that will never go away completely, and people will need to actively resit that element in their communities to greater or lesser degrees basically until the species dies out. I couldn't give a good account of why I feel this way briefly, except by saying violent xenophobia, a desire for a return to imagined glory days, and a feeling that a militaristic strong man will solve perceived social decay have been recurring theme in history.

  No.34195

File: 1469622187850.png (49.79 KB, 200x200, 1469521519993.gif)

>>34189
>Just prevent media platforms from becoming mouth pieces and recruiting tools for these kinds of ideologies
Autocracy, regardless of its branding, is least persuasive when its exposed and out in the open for discussion.

People who are susceptible to ideology will fall for any ideology. It doesn't matter how absurd, self-contradictory, trite, theoretically vacant, incomplete or politically contrary to their interests it is. It's because of their cognitive profile and neurological structure. There's a genetic makeup in the species that causes a broad segment of humantiy to uncritically assimilate whatever is around them, have no consciousness of the process and be unable to escape these system of thought. If you put them in a radical christian church they'll hate gays, non-christians, explain everything in terms of religious platitudes, give away half their income to a church and alienate themselves from everything. If you put them in SJW circles, they'll hate white people, straight people, adopt an unnormative sexual preference for cool points, dye their hair (cause they're NOT CONFORMING), explain everything in terms of privlege and race/gender conflict, shun people who believe differently, etc. You can keep shifting these people between environments and they'll exhibit no self awareness because they are structurally another species. I say it's genetic because I think it's basically a more potent emotional response that can't be overridden through conscious reasoning. Kind of like BPD, but the response flares up in situations that involve conformity choices and social proof.

Anyways, the point is who cares about these people. I don't need a padded babby environment with "good" topics and "bad" topics just because some people are biologically incapable of independent thought. I don't want to share an environement with them, because their presence in a community based around open discussion is actually redundant.

  No.34198

>>34189
>"No platform for fascism" doesn't mean for me that we need to remove every nazi opinion from everywhere.
It does for a lot of people. More importantly unless you do do it everywhere (which you can't), it is very often counter productive to try to do it elsewhere.

>Just prevent media platforms from becoming mouth pieces and recruiting tools for these kinds of ideologies.

What counts as a media platform though? CNN is one thing. They're a mainstream private media organisation and they just don't have time to represent such fringe views. Preventing them from using public soapboxes doesn't help anyone though and we need public soapboxes or other fringe views don't stand a chance of becoming relevant to the mainstream.

There's the corollary to this though. Surely, by those arguments, this means that it has the effect of preventing nazis from becoming relevant to the mainstream and it does but that's an empty gesture. They weren't going to manage that anyway.

>I think this was a good call

Yeah, that guy was not well behaved. I've a little sympathy. I imagine he's quite used to sly jabs and insult matches but them's the rules.

>even if it wasn't necessarily done from the "no platform" point of view.

Your guess is as good as mine.

>Maybe a good strategy in general is to let nazis and there ilk to make themselves look bad

Yep.

>As I see it the impulse behind natsoc is a part of humanity that will never go away completely,

Oh yeah. I meant explicitly natsoc.

>>34195
>There's a genetic makeup in the species that causes a broad segment of humantiy to uncritically assimilate whatever is around them
Yeah. It's called the human gene. We all do this shit to a lesser or greater extent, that's why culture exists as a concept, and it's when we fail to acknowledge it that we're most susceptible to it.

  No.34205

>>34195
This post has some interesting points.

>There's a genetic makeup in the species that causes a broad segment of humantiy to uncritically assimilate whatever is around them, have no consciousness of the process and be unable to escape these system of thought.


But aren't you just describing young people and any adult who lacks any real direction in their life? On top of that, I think part of the problem is that we live in a time where we appeal more to authority more than ever with even school systems seemingly working to make students obey rather than think for themselves. Even the examples you used Abrahamic religions and Intersectional Feminist groups often have an authority with harsh penalties for not believing in it. And both of these get to people at very young ages before the brain is fully developed.

I know I'm basically playing into a Nature vs Nurture debate, but I feel that a lot of these people who have fallen for these ideologies have been socialized into falling into them easier.

Ultimately, I think the best course of action is not to deny a platform to groups like Nazis but rather to change the educational landscape where thinking for yourself is pushed more rather than making people into obedient workers for companies. Because, as you pointed out, if you allow discussion of bad ideas to be open, then people can see it for the bad ideas that they are.

I hope I made sense.

  No.34206

>>34205
>But aren't you just describing young people and any adult who lacks any real direction in their life?
I agree; the post in question seems more like pseudo-scientific bullshit to me. There's no such thing as transcending our social inclinations.. not yet anyway; we're all susceptible to eating from the trashcan of ideology.

  No.34211

File: 1469633729404.png (224.87 KB, 181x200, 5d49471fa5827a59ced153c6e6be6b10.png)

>>34205
>But aren't you just describing young people and any adult who lacks any real direction in their life
I'm describing every "human" that is capable of experiencing shame, fear, and is subject to the mechanisms of conditioning. Conditioning isn't limited to attitudes, it's applicable for concepts, modes of thought, perceptions and meaning. I believe it's a genetic configuration, in concert with early-mid life experiences, that governs varying susceptibility to particular types of conditioning. It would explain why people with reasonably high IQs can fall for heuristical processes as often as their counterparts.

>both of these get to people at very young ages before the brain is fully developed

I reject this theory entirely as masturbatory freudian-brand confirmation bias. At a young age kids can't comprehend any of the ideological content, they can only develop emotional responses to imagery. They barely stop being little shits to themselves and others until they're past adolescence. Impressionable people will change as soon as they're introduced into another environment.

Ideologies and ontologies are perpetuated by culture and social conditioning alone. Just being in an environment where other people are verbalizing or facially expressing their perceptions and thoughts conditions your own. It's a combination of projection, unconscious idealization and salience.

>appeal more to authority

A formal logical fallacy, but I see it more as a product of neurological structure. The "authority" in this case in unconciously the same as a peer group, or some dominant social force in the environment that your brain locks onto to learn norms, feedback and social information. These are entirely unconscious processes driven by fear and shame, and may very well be the (unintentional) byproduct of education systems in first world countries.

>change the educational landscape where thinking for yourself is pushed more

Still ideological, as intimated by >>34206 . Will never happen though because keeping people unconsciously enslaved to their peer groups in combination with mass media control is the most effective and least intrusive means of social and intellectual domination.

>There's no such thing as transcending our social inclinations

If that were true we would only be communicating with blunt objects and thrown stones. Fear, shame, and guilt are used to control other impulses broadly. Anything can be transcended with conscious reasoning. Post-modernism was a direct intellectual response to the idea that metanarratives were inescapable or could be assigned a truth value outside of its own discourse-bound system. It's enough to simply reject the possibility of a neccessary or true human semiotic relationship with itself as a species or its environment. ur life is meaningless

>Yeah. It's called the human gene

Thank you for your ideology m8ers.

  No.34212

>>34195
>Autocracy, regardless of its branding, is least persuasive when its exposed and out in the open for discussion.

I don't think this holds any water at all. Politics is not the scientific community, where ideas win out because of their empirical merits. Nazism absolutely became more popular in Germany when it was more and more discussed in the public. The same is true of fascism in Italy. Germany banned Mein Kampf until recently and, while I don't agree with that, it certainly didn't cause nazism to become hugely popular or more persuasive in the meantime.
People don't, in general, do a great deal of research and soul searching when choosing or becoming convinced of a political ideology. They hear a few talking points that make sense to them and are quickly taken into the fold if they align well enough to their own self-image and vague notions about the world.
More people think like Alex Jones, for example, because Alex Jones is a good broadcaster with a popular program, not because his views somehow won by their intellectual force in the marketplace of ideas.
This isn't something that just happens to morons without the most basic critical thing skills Don't think for a second that there aren't many ardent fascists who are more intelligent and thoughtful than you or I.

>>Maybe a good strategy in general is to let nazis and there ilk to make themselves look bad

>Yep.
It shouldn't end there though. They can be allowed to make themselves look bad, but it will only work that way as long as they don't start to control the conversation. Think about those interviews on the daily show and similar programs, or about how it goes down when a liberal calls into a conservative talk radio program. It's very easy to make anyone look like an idiot when you have the power in the situation. Not allowing Nazis a platform means denying them that kind of power wherever possible by whatever tactics are effective in the particular medium in question.

>I think the best course of action is not to deny a platform to groups like Nazis but rather to change the educational landscape where thinking for yourself is pushed more rather than making people into obedient workers for companies. Because, as you pointed out, if you allow discussion of bad ideas to be open, then people can see it for the bad ideas that they are.

This may also be a bit optimistic. If people are encouraged to think for themselves most of them will still chose from among the ideologies most commonly presented to them in the media and by the people around them.
Even with the most forward thinking educational system in the world more Americans aren't going to start becoming Zoroastrians because it's not a religion that is on the radar in the culture, and virtually no one knows or could even name one. And I don't think more people would become distributionists because pretty much no one knows what the fuck that is in the first place, while most people have at least heard of Anarchism. To the extent nazism is allowed to be in the cultural air more people will likely choose to be nazis regardless of the sort of education they received.

  No.34213

>>34211
Huh? The reason why I asked if you are describing basically everyone under the age of like 30 was because it kinda sounded like that to me. Because while I'll admit that it's more anecdotal, it's usually younger people who fall into things like religions, cults, political groups, etc. Especially when they have little to no life experiences outside of their social circle or family or what have you.

> I believe it's a genetic configuration, in concert with early-mid life experiences, that governs varying susceptibility to particular types of conditioning. It would explain why people with reasonably high IQs can fall for heuristical processes as often as their counterparts.


It sounds like we agree a little here, I feel it's mostly being socialized into ideological thinking, however. I don't really think "genetics" is the right thing to point at.

> At a young age kids can't comprehend any of the ideological content, they can only develop emotional responses to imagery.


Which is my point, you combine that with cultures that demand kids to obey to authority with little to no questioning and they get exposed to something like Radical Feminism or Nazism or whatever then you get people who are trapped into the thought process of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong".

In fact, you are right about changing the educational landscape, because even if you are educated, you can still have some turmoil in yourself that makes you a target for cults and other groups.

  No.34214

File: 1469637458940.png (398.69 KB, 200x150, 30.china.corb.jpg)

>>34213
>it's usually younger people who fall into things
Nope, it's an all ages ride. The feelings of emptiness never subside and people are lured in by community and the unconditional acceptance. Familiarize yourself with american religious phenomena. 50 year olds go batshit as quickly as prepubescent kids.

> I don't really think "genetics" is the right thing to point at

Let's pretend you have a room full of dogs you condition to salivate at a noise. You stop pairing the noise with food and record how long each dog retains the behaviour when prompted with a noise. Why will the durations vary? Genetics may dictate aspects of neurological structure that determine how potent conditioning events are subjectively percieved to be, their ability to retained, how much control a subject has to conciously override them, etc. I obv. don't have an mri scanner, neuroimage software, and a theisis to write but that's what I think governs it. The "nurture" component can influence both biological and genetic structure. Most learning, liking, disliking, percieving, thinking events in a social context are a product of conditioning.

Conditioning is really fucking pervasive. It's the core mechanism behind most cognitive biases.

  No.34217

>>34205
In Jame Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, he describes (among many other things) how American school systems do not teach history as a collection of ideas to discuss and learn from, but rather a series of melodramatic events that happened without any definable cause.

In this way, schools avoid teaching children to think for themselves by presenting history as a series of disjointed events, which happened for no valuable reason other than for children in this era to learn and regurgitate on their exams. It grows followers, not leaders or free-thinkers.

  No.34220

>>34211
>Thank you for your ideology m8ers.
Just repaying like with like. Honestly, it's good that you have an idea of psychology that is your own. I can certainly respect that but there is so much to be learnt by applying this inward. Do you never see any of that which you ascribe to others in yourself?

>>34212
>Nazism absolutely became more popular in Germany when it was more and more discussed in the public.
You're putting the cart before the horse. It was discussed more in public as it became more popular. It became more popular more as a result of the war and subsequent conditions in Germany. Hitler played a big personal part as well.

>it certainly didn't cause nazism to become hugely popular

Any teacher who has tried to ban pokemon will tell you that's not the case. There is an allure to banned things, especially for children.

>not because his views somehow won by their intellectual force in the marketplace of ideas.

Right. They won due to social force though not his personal force, he wouldn't have a program if he talked about the earth being flat. Nazis are pretty close to the bottom of the totem pole in terms of social force, nobody is giving them a prime time spot, and yet...

>Don't think for a second that there aren't many ardent fascists who are more intelligent and thoughtful than you or I.

I know but it doesn't really matter. They get into it for the same reasons anyone else does.

>means denying them that kind of power wherever possible

So basically nowhere? You can't stop them doing interviews and they are never going to have that power when you're doing an interview. Again, this doesn't change much. All controlling a conversation really is is presenting your views in an underhanded fashion. The interviewee knows they were misrepresented and the broadcasters could have put whatever bullshit they liked there instead of an interview.

>To the extent nazism is allowed to be in the cultural air

>allowed.
We don't have that power. We can all hope for a world in which these views are the purview solely of political academics but that is not the world in which we live.

  No.34221

File: 1469648223618.png (119.55 KB, 147x200, satoshi-uematsu-facebook-3.jpg)

>>34220
>there is so much to be learnt by applying this inward. Do you never see any of that which you ascribe to others in yourself
Who do you think it's based on? It took half a year of total seclusion to surface most of my unconscious functions. You will never gain awareness of them if you just go from social situation to social situation; it's impossible to focus on the impulses long enough to understand their origins or content. I wouldn't recommend doing it because it's both depressing and overwhelming. Most of my adolescence was spent listening to music in introspection so you'll want to get gud at that before trying anything.

Most people do:

stimuli -> emotion -> attitude/belief/perception change -> rational consideration after (if they even get here)

I have become:

stimuli -> unconscious impulse enters conscious mind -> examine impulse; compare against previous cases, understand cognitive biases involved, analyze and connect to theory -> usually nothing

I'd evaluate myself against social situations, propaganda videos, ideology laced articles, speeches, loaded language, tens of thousands of other people's anecdotes and cases, humiliating situations, etc and try to underpin recurring cases to theory. This leaves me usually understanding what other people feel and experience often before they do (yeah, magical thinking, grandiose delusions, whatves). It's a really alienating experience IRL as you know exactly what kind of impulses and motivations are behind many behaviours and can often easily predict thoughts and responses. Frightening, often.

I'm really good at fighting games tho.

  No.34224

>> You're putting the cart before the horse. It was discussed more in public as it became more popular.
This was a poorly formed way of making my point that there aren't many examples of movements becoming less popular when they could regularly make their case on a large stage no matter how bad their reasoning is. Many people thought that Donald Drumpf would destroy his chances by just being his ridiculous self on the national stage, but that's exactly the opposite of what happened.
This idea
>Autocracy, regardless of its branding, is least persuasive when its exposed and out in the open for discussion.
is something I can't buy at all. People have been very well persuaded by various forms of autocracy while it was out in the open in the past. Did Nazism some how become less persuasive when it wasn't a small fringe movement any more and openly making it's case to large crowds?

>>34220
>We don't have that power.
What do you mean? Maybe not either or us to any great extent, but people certainly have the power to decide whether or not to allow nazis to speak at their events, appear on their television programs, or evangelizing on their property. Average citizens can band together to boycot places broadcast their views, or pressure them to leave public spaces. Advertisers can pull sponsorships. Forum moderators can make an effort to keep nazi propaganda off their site. This power is exercised by people all the time. To the extent there are gate keepers to media, they can keep nazis behind the gates. If every fascist who wanted to make his case in front of many people was allowed to when people could have said no, fascism would certainly be in the cultural air to a greater extent.
Nazis and other fascists want to get airtime in the media for a good reason. Because it allows them to recruit. They want to gain a foot hold in internet communities that aren't already specific to nazism for the same reasons. I doubt they're wrong in thinking it matters. I would like people not to give nazis anything they want for the advancement of their cause.

If you are in this thread because you're an Anarchist presumably you think having the ability to make your case on your terms to many more people would help. Sure you can create your own channels for distributing the argument for anarchism, but you will be mostly preaching to the choir.
I would guess that many people came to Anarchism through Noam Chomsky, who is virtually the only figure barely in the popular culture who expresses anarchist views.

> All controlling a conversation really is is presenting your views in an underhanded fashion.

This is one of the things it allows you to do but not all of them. It puts you in a position to dismiss or ignore other views. It allows your views to be presumed to be more or less sane even by those who don't agree with you. It makes people consider your position more seriously.

>>Don't think for a second that there aren't many ardent fascists who are more intelligent and thoughtful than you or I.

>I know but it doesn't really matter. They get into it for the same reasons anyone else does.
I say this to make the point that you can't fight the idea of fascism with reason alone, and that being a fascist isn't a demonstration of weak mindedness.

>if he talked about the earth being flat.

This is different because it's very easy to demonstrate it's empirically wrong. Nazis, 9/11 truthers and what have you can make more of a play a seeming reasonable. One doesn't prove fascism wrong in the same way.

>Any teacher who has tried to ban pokemon will tell you that's not the case. There is an allure to banned things, especially for children.

I'm not even asking to ban books here, a don't think it's a good idea on principle, I'm just saying it apparently didn't make it any more appealing as an ideology.

  No.34234

>>34224
if I had three comrades with the solid analysis you do, lain, we could end this war in a week.

  No.34235

>>34137
>>34142
Marx and Bakunin more or less agreed on where they wanted to end up. You could describe it as "full communism" or "people dictating their own lives" or whatever, but at this early point in the Marxist/Anarchist split, they were more or less the same.

The difference at this point was how to obtain communism. Anarchists wanted to use direct action, attacking the state and capital, expropriating the means of production, and generally fighting a total war against capitalism.

Marx, on the other hand, supported electoralism. Marx would likely have approved of neither the Bolshevik coup d'etat nor the Maoist guerrilla war. Marx wanted to vote communists into office, have them use the machinery of the state to enact communism, and then break down the state as power devolved to the worker's groups. (He also thought Britain was the best place for this to happen and likely would have dismissed both Russia and China as potentially communist countries as both lacked industrialization and thus a proletariat class.)

So, what are your preferred tactics: electoral, or direct action?

I would say the second major distinction between anarchism and marxism is that anarchism has trended much more generally as an attack on all structures of hierarchical society. While feminist struggle, anti-colonial and global majority liberation struggle, queer struggle, etc., have always been to some extent mentioned by marxists, marxism seems to trend more class reductionist than anarchism (not to say we're immune to such cancers!).

Personally, I think Marxism is a good school of economic thought, and a good analysis of capitalism and the structure of this one vertical of hierarchical society. In contrast, anarchism seems like a much sounder view of how hierarchical social structures interact and intersect. That said, the strategic outlook of anarchism is always focused on creating communism, whereas the strategic outlook of Marxism is always focused on hijacking the institutional power of the capitalist state so that the revolutionary class can build communism itself. I think this comes from Marx's bad sense of strategy; having good analysis doesn't imply a good sense of strategy. I can certainly see the allure of electoralism and statist communism, but history and theory indicate that it is a very fragile strategy indeed, that can fail in numerous stages for numerous reasons. On the other hand, anarchism is much more anti-fragile. As soon as an anarchist meme like Occupy springs up that can locally disempower the state and capital, with the property that networking the local groups causes an increase in the power the networked set of groups on the order of the square of the number of individual groups, the state and capitalism will die pretty much overnight. Marxism can never promise this, which is why I'm not a marxist.

This is a thread about anarchism, not anarchism vs. marxism, but we should definitely have this conversation in another thread.

  No.34238

>>34221
Oh, my apologies. From the genetic stuff I'd mistakenly gotten the impression you thought you were immune due to good genes. My bad.

>>34224
>becoming less popular when they could regularly make their case on a large stage
This is the same thing. A large stage implies a large audience which implies popularity.

>Many people thought that Donald Drumpf would destroy his chances by just being his ridiculous self on the national stag

No. A lot of people thought that he was going to be great, he had an audience and like any politician he played to it complete with PR team. It's not entirely comparable with modern nazis.

>Did Nazism some how become less persuasive when it wasn't a small fringe movement any more and openly making it's case to large crowds?

No. I must say it did not, but they aren't going to find that support so easily in this climate. They are literally nazis. A popular move towards autocracy is a possible thing but they won't be calling themselves nazis. Honestly the fear that there will be a literal Fourth Reich with swastikas and everything is absurd.

>Maybe not either or us to any great extent, but people certainly have the power to decide...

You can but it's not really helping. They're still there. They're still recruiting because they're still active members of the culture. If it was all about media airtime they'd have died out by now.

>Nazis and other fascists want to get airtime in the media for a good reason.

They do but the only reason any major media would invite them on is to make them look bad.

There is a big difference between private mass media and public soapboxes. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't dream of telling you how you should run your site but as a culture we need soapboxes for the usual reason and trying to exclude them there just means they build their own soapbox and then use your soapbox to make more socially acceptable arguments and then direct interested people to theirs. Most of the recruitment for fringe political groups is among the young and the taboo aspect is a big draw for them.

Continued.

  No.34239

>>34238
Continued.

>They want to gain a foot hold in internet communities that aren't already specific to nazism for the same reasons.

How many people do you think spamming "GAS THE JEWS" has recruited? In the early days of /pol/ it was an amazing fluke for their recruitment. Lots of kids, lots of memes but I don't think anyone could have forseen that and it's not the case now. Most people are just too set in their ways for any sort of major political change. They didn't get everyone on 8chan onto /pol/ they just pushed everyone else off 8chan, some to some other chan, a few probably to facebook or reddit or something. It doesn't actually further their aims. It's a common mistake and a lot of people do it. We call it an invasion but it just doesn't really work like that on the internet. For the same reasons we can't shut them down because they just go talk somewhere else they can't shut us down.

>I doubt they're wrong in thinking it matters.

The internet is still a bit new. Nobody is really fully used to it yet and while it helps with the illusion you're "gaining ground" the general misconception is a very common one. Out of sight out of mind. It's the same mistake in the concept of "no platform". Ultimately you're forcing people out and expecting they'll disappear.

>It puts you in a position to dismiss or ignore other views. It allows your views to be presumed to be more or less sane even by those who don't agree with you. It makes people consider your position more seriously.

The only way to actually get in this position is to have control over the medium and if they have control over the medium we obviously don't and so can't stop them. If you go stand in front of a random crowd and shout "I'm a nazi" you'll get booed, not taken seriously.

>if he talked about the earth being flat.

>This is different because it's very easy to demonstrate it's empirically wrong.
I chose the example purely as a fringe view. He wouldn't have a program if he was a nazi either. 9/11 truth is a lot less fringe, especially outside of America.

>I'm just saying it apparently didn't make it any more appealing as an ideology.

Apparently how? There are still nazis.

  No.34250

>>34239
>Ultimately you're forcing people out and expecting they'll disappear.

You keep making this error of logic. Obviously the people won't disappear. The following things WILL happen:

* their ideas will be less cognitively available than if they had a platform
* because of that, there will be less of an impression that their ideas are normal/acceptable modes of political thought.
* Fascists being perceived as outside the acceptable range of political thought leads to fewer people taking fascists seriously.
* MOST importantly, if we consistently force fascists out of communities, in the limit, they will not be able to find EACH OTHER, and thus not be able to amass political power.

>It doesn't actually further their aims. It's a common mistake and a lot of people do it. We call it an invasion but it just doesn't really work like that on the internet. For the same reasons we can't shut them down because they just go talk somewhere else they can't shut us down.


This is factually wrong.

First, especially on anonymous fora, fascists can create an illusion of consensus around their ideas. This is a powerful recruiting tool and will eventually shift discourse towards their preferred set point. Because normal people will prefer not to have extensive arguments about the relative merits of nazism (or, with liberals like yourself, how we need to ~protect~ the nazis so that we have ~fwee speech~), they will post less, and nazis and sympathizers will post more.

This will exacerbate the already-present phenomena of group polarization, as pluralistically ignorant group members overestimate the average degree of nazi sympathizing among other members. People who don't want to share a forum with nazis will leave, causing the polarization process to accelerate.

Over time, if people perceive they have no comrades and only enemies, they will leave. Nazis invade forums to create that impression, and because the Internet is friendly to vocal minorities, it is a potently effective tactic.

>Honestly the fear that there will be a literal Fourth Reich with swastikas and everything is absurd.


You haven't been paying attention. Golden Dawn, Front Nationale, BNP/UKIP, Drumpf, nationalism and far-right parties are on the ascent all over the Western world. The anti-globalization push that began with the rise of religious fundamentalism in the middle east has hit the west and is growing, not shrinking.

To put this another way, the present social order is not sustainable -- there are not enough jobs or resources for 20th century neoliberalism to persist very far into the 21st century. There is no left to speak of outside of moribund Eurosocialism and isolated, repressed pockets of anarchists. What ideology do you think the current global elite would be more comfortable with replacing neoliberalism -- nationalist autocracy, or some variant of leftism?

We are dangerously close to permanently losing our ability to organize, and it's because people like you are GIVING A PLATFORM TO FASCISTS.

Just say NO. NEGATE the fascists at EVERY TURN. No quarter, no retreat, no surrender, NO FUCKING PLATFORM.

  No.34278

>>34239
>Apparently how? There are still nazis.
I didn't say it stopped nazis from existing. I'm saying the fact of nazism being very actively suppressed in Germany after the war didn't some how foment a powerful nazi underground, that would have been prevented if nazis were

>If you go stand in front of a random crowd and shout "I'm a nazi" you'll get booed, not taken seriously.

Maybe I've been using nazi as a general stand in for all types of fascism too much. Of course nazis are not going to say "I'm a nazi" in public, at least when they are trying to get their message across in real life. Other people won't even believe they are fascists but essentially have the same political platform. Some will have ideas that are compatible with the aspects of fascism least acceptable in the media usually, and would like to appeal to fascists, but aren't entirely fascists themselves (I think Drumpf falls here).
I'm not too worried about the literal fourth reich happening, I'm worried about people in slightly different uniforms who are essentially the same sort of thing coming

>A popular move towards autocracy

Yes they won't call themselves nazis (even if they are), but this is exactly what's happening now. If not nazism, I believe something like Italian fascism

>No. A lot of people thought that he was going to be great,

There were many people who thought both things. The people who thought that Drumpf would hang himself with his own words were wrong. People still believe this will happen. Drumpf is probably right when he said he could shoot someone in the street and still keep is campaing going (or something to that effect). If you can remember back to last June, he wasn't taken too seriously by right away. His campain functions precisely by saying provocative things over and over to get constant coverage by the media. It seems to not have made a difference that so much of that coverage was negative and continues to be--he's still leading in a number of polls right now. I maintain that Drumpf isn't a fascist exactly, but the point is the negative press has probably helped him ultimately because it gets his message out to people who are receptive to it. It is well known that David Duke enthusiastically endorses Drumpf and this has not hurt him.

>This is the same thing. A large stage implies a large audience which implies popularity.

No it doesn't. People who run various kinds of large stages can choose to allow people with fringe views onto it to make their case. Anarchists are possibly even more of a fringe group in numbers (a bit more socially acceptable as a view in itself probably) and Noam Chomsky and David Graeber can talk about anarchism on Charlie Rose without being shouted down like lunatics, or edited to look like idiots.

>How many people do you think spamming "GAS THE JEWS" has recruited?

This is a ridiculous representation of how people actually attempt to infiltrate forums and recruit people. Even completely simplistic stormfags are more complex than this. Imagine how much better even slightly more intelligent edgy teenagers could do. Here's a list of more sophisticated tactics one might use to attempt to co-opt a forum,
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/


>The internet is still a bit new. Nobody is really fully used to it yet

Full grown adults now have never lived a day of their life without having access to the internet. I'm pretty sure they're used to it. Plenty of people have experience with the dynamics of online communities since the days of BBS's and usenet.

> among the young and the taboo aspect is a big draw for them

Kids who want to be edgy have many options to choose from. If they choose some brand of fascism it is because of other factors than simply its allure as a cultural taboo. There must be some reason they came to nazism and not satanism, maoism, anarcho capitalism, or just

  No.34294

>>34235
>Marx supported electoralism
[citation needed]

  No.34301

>>34250
>their ideas will be less cognitively available than if they had a platform
They still have a platform and their ideas are still available on other platforms, they're just not clearly labelled "nazi".

>because of that, there will be less of an impression that their ideas are normal/acceptable modes of political thought.

That impression is not going to happen anyway. They're literally the nazis and their views will be associated with nazis.

>Fascists being perceived as outside the acceptable range of political thought leads to fewer people taking fascists seriously.

Quite the opposite. Laughter would be far better than "You must not allow them to speak, it could be dangerous" especially among children.

>they will not be able to find EACH OTHER

Yeah they will. It's not even going to be that hard for them, there are far too many ways to communicate. For instance when they pushed /pol/ off 4chan and banned the mention of 8chan I'd guess about 0 /pol/ users got lost. Even in their worst case they just search "natsoc forum" on google.

>liberals like yourself

No...

>how we need to ~protect~ the nazis so that we have ~fwee speech~

I'm not interested in protecting them. Isolation and mental excuses protects fringe views. They are at a massive disadvantage when it comes to things like group polarisation and they need these things to mitigate it.

>pluralistically ignorant group members overestimate the average degree of nazi sympathizing among other members

You're not giving people nearly enough credit. They know when they're being invaded even in anonymity. For instance http://8ch.net/co/res/635253.html#635509 . If they're not doing such aggressive invasion tactics then we're back to the normal "We just want to talk about immigration/whatever else you deem acceptable." The problem is that subtlety on their part defeats no platform for the same reasons it beats people's "we're being invaded" sense.

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting you should sit by while people deliberately invade and tell lies like "/co/ has always been /pol/ territory" but that's quite different from having your say and then being ignored/laughed at. Still the community itself is what's at stake not your cause because there are and will always be more communities who support this cause and the rate of fence sitters who were convinced by the invasion (incredibly few) is far lower than the rate of fence sitters who were pissed off by it.

>You haven't been paying attention.

You haven't been paying attention to this discussion. I'm not talking about Drumpf. I'm talking about literal national socialists with swastikas and everything. The only part of the world where it's at all reasonable to imagine it happening is Germany and they, more than anyone, have tried not to give them a platform. The problem with "no platform" for people like Drumpf is that you just can't do it.

>it's because people like you are GIVING A PLATFORM TO FASCISTS.

No. I didn't put Drumpf on TV and I can't stop him. Nor can you or anyone else who doesn't already sympathise with him. That society as a whole might not let nazis talk is a realistic thing but that society won't let the far right side of the mainstream talk is almost contradictory. You have to be realistic if you hope to affect change.

  No.34302

>>34278
>I'm saying the fact of nazism being very actively suppressed in Germany after the war didn't some how foment a powerful nazi underground
It's worse there than anywhere in the world. Of course the obvious other factors mean it's probably not the sole cause but it's definitely not that effective at stopping them.

>Other people won't even believe they are fascists but essentially have the same political platform.

Yeah. This is the main reason that "no platform for fascists" doesn't work for the more mainstream political groups.

>I'm worried about people in slightly different uniforms who are essentially the same sort of thing coming

That's a much more reasonable fear but you're not helping to prevent that either. The guys in different uniforms just go "no no no, we're not fascists silly," until after they've sold the "everyone else is brainwashed" line.

>Noam Chomsky and David Graeber can talk about anarchism on Charlie Rose

That's because they're academically respected. Don't get me wrong there are academically respected right people too but then they just don't call themselves fascists and get on TV anyway.

>Here's a list of more sophisticated tactics one might use to attempt to co-opt a forum,

That's the guide to forum spies. As an aside, it's good to see it being spread. Most of it is just not applicable to them because it's meant for truth suppression rather than evangelising, spies have less of an interest in that. They do share it amongst themselves a lot but that's because they're worried people will do it to them. That said, there are lots of more effective tactics for this type of thing but these tactics fly under "no platform".

>I'm pretty sure they're used to it.

We may be used to the technology but we are not used to the ramifications. The internet had been around for decades and nobody expected what happened to /pol/. Culture is a complicated subject. It's been around for as long as humanity and we still don't really understand it. The internet was a big twist and they're often deceptive as we try to use old knowledge in a new environment.

>If they choose some brand of fascism it is because of other factors

There are always plenty of other factors but that doesn't mean that it's not counter productive over all. The idea was to make it so that it wasn't even a choice for people and that, clearly, has failed.

  No.34313

>>34302
>That's the guide to forum spies.
Part 2 is more relevant I suppose.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/02/disinformation-part-2-detailed-tips-for-trolls/
I know this is supposed to be a guide used by government shills, but it's still relevant to people who are interested in changing the consensus of an online community from X to Y.

>There are always plenty of other factors but that doesn't mean that it's not counter productive over all. The idea was to make it so that it wasn't even a choice for people and that, clearly, has failed.

Smoking has become somewhat taboo in many places in the US. Cigarette manufacturers have been denied a platform in a number of media, even if they might attempt to advertise in subtler ways. There are less smokers now. You may say this is because there is strong evidence that cigarettes are bad for you, but there is also strong evidence fascism is extremely bad for the citizens of a country. Less people smoke now even though it is somewhat more edgy. Some people are drawn to taboo things. More people are inclined to avoid these things than would be if they weren't shunned by the people around them. Most people don't enjoy doing things that put them on the fringes of society.

>You have to be realistic if you hope to affect change.

How else are you to move the window of who can talk to the public if you don't try do something about it. This window is always changing. It isn't unrealistic to imagine people could influence which way it move by acting. Indeed this is what fascists actively try to do, and what the candidacy of Drumpf has effectively done.
Compared to this what about an anarchist program is realistic then? I would say this is small potatoes compared to overthrowing capitalism.

>nobody expected what happened to /pol/.

Well now we can expect such things.

> we still don't really understand it.

So does this mean we should do nothing? It's doubtful there will ever be some ultimate understanding of how culture functions.
The human body has been around at least as long human culture. We still don't fully understand it. Should we not try to perform brain surgery. We're especially far from really understanding the brain. AIDS is very new in the scheme of things. Should people be skeptical of anti retro-viral medications? I suppose you would say medicine is something that can me empirically verified so this is different, but I can empirically verify when there are fewer people are expressing nazi compatable views in the media and on forums even more easily than I can conduct drug trials. I can verifiy that there are fewer people with fascist views in public office.

This all quite theoretical up to now what would YOU do if you had the control in these situations:
-you have to decide whether or not to allow a person with views that are obviously aligned with fascism (though they don't come out and say it) to speak at your university.
-You are a student and such a person is coming to speak at your university. Do you attempt to stop it in some way.
-Suppose they do in fact explicetly describe themselves as a fascist/nazi.
-David Duke is running for senator. Do you interview him on your news program? If you do, do you choose to present him in a detached neutral light?
-What about a person like in the first scenario?
-You are an advertiser with this program/network.
-You are a viewer of the program/network.
>You are the owner of an anonymous forum, and it seems that there are significantly more threads/posts expressing views favorable to nazism/fascism lately.
>The are more posts that are explicitly favorable to nazism or nationalism.
>do you choose to sell current magazines that promote white nationalist views at your bookstore or convenience store.

  No.34315

>>34313
By stopping discussion of fascism you employ a form of fascism.

  No.34317

>>34315
No. Fascist jail and kill people who disagree with them. They ban expressing opposing views by law. They take central control of the media. They employ spies and secret police to assure that people are not discussing opposing views even in private.

I'm asking people to reject fascist in their online communities, irl communites, from their various media platfroms, and from their literal platforms. This is not remotely the same thing.

  No.34363

>>34313
>Smoking has become somewhat taboo
There is no smoker community recruiting people. Everybody says, "don't smoke," especially smokers yet still people do it.

>How else are you to move the window of who can talk to the public if you don't try do something about it

I'm not suggesting you do nothing. It is not a choice between "no platform" and nothing.

>It isn't unrealistic to imagine people could influence which way it move by acting

Of course you can influence it. "No platform" does influence it. Just not for the better. The window of what is publicly acceptable is not the same as the window of what people believe and the second doesn't just blindly follow the first.

>Indeed this is what fascists actively try to do, and what the candidacy of Drumpf has effectively done.

Quite successfully as well but they didn't do it via trying to deny their opposition a platform.

>I would say this is small potatoes compared to overthrowing capitalism.

Yep. That's unrealistic to imagine any time soon either. One step at a time but please let's move in a productive direction.

>Well now we can expect such things.

I suppose but we're unlikely to see the conditions rise again. People don't use the net like they used to and we're a bit more careful with irony these days.

>So does this mean we should do nothing?

No. My point was only that people still make mistakes, even if they're used to the internet.

>I can empirically verify when there are fewer people are expressing nazi compatable views in the media and on forums

On the one hand we can and stormfront is still going strong, growing even. On the other you can't empirically verify the expressions that you cannot see. What is disallowed in public is spread in private.

  No.34364

Continued.

>you have to decide whether or not to allow a person with views that are obviously aligned with fascism (though they don't come out and say it) to speak at your university.

Really depends on the situation. If it were at my hometown university with my local legitimate far right political party (they're quite strong around here) and there was ample time for everyone who wanted to speak to do so then sure. Me publicly saying "I'm not letting you on because you're fascists" is going to cause so much noise that they'd get less publicity by just letting them on.

>You are a student and such a person is coming to speak at your university. Do you attempt to stop it in some way.

Again, no. That's headline material. I might do something about it, like spread the info that shows they're not what they present themselves to be. Maybe try to become a speaker myself if I felt up to it.

>Suppose they do in fact explicetly describe themselves as a fascist/nazi.

Then they have no place at a university because nobody there wants to hear them, the same can't be said of the more presentable parties.

>David Duke is running for senator. Do you interview him on your news program? If you do, do you choose to present him in a detached neutral light?

It's not about what I'd do. I'm going to get inside the head of someone casting for a big news program and say "Will it get me good ratings?"

>What about a person like in the first scenario?

>You are an advertiser with this program/network.
See above.

>You are a viewer of the program/network.

Here I actually have a lot more power. I don't have to act in the "best interests" of my company or be replaced by someone who will. Angry letters/boycotts do work. Tell them they're wasting my time with this drivel. Can't expect it to just work for the more mainstream speakers though.

>You are the owner of an anonymous forum, and it seems that there are significantly more threads/posts expressing views favorable to nazism/fascism lately.

Why? What sort of a community is it? Are we being invaded? It's one thing to respond to an invasion but the last thing I want to do is jump at shadows and ban someone "back to /pol/" when they didn't come from there.

>The are more posts that are explicitly favorable to nazism or nationalism.

A lot more? All of a sudden? Yeah I think we're being invaded.

>do you choose to sell current magazines that promote white nationalist views at your bookstore or convenience store.

Depends on my environment and the audience of the books. I'm not going to let stuff sit on the shelves because I feel I'm obliged to but if people want it they're going to get it anyway and this way I can say something about it when I sell it to them.

  No.34414

File: 1469982027006.png (208.32 KB, 200x134, kek.jpg)

>>34317
Kek that sounds awfully fammiliar.

  No.34415

>>34414
> not discussing fascism in internet forums means you support USSR style communism.

This is you right now.

  No.34417

>>34415
Late Soviet Union did not use direct physical violence to suppress opposing or unwanted opinion.

  No.34418

>>34417
whew, I guess that excuses the first six of their seven decades of power!

  No.34421

>>34417
Which also caused their fall

  No.34423

>>34317
You talking about good ol' Ioseph?

  No.34429

File: 1470001173133.png (179.93 KB, 135x200, tumblr_inline_np3h8kKuEK1ts0nxc_540.jpg)

>>34250
>Just say NO. NEGATE the fascists at EVERY TURN. No quarter, no retreat, no surrender, NO FUCKING PLATFORM.
wew lad
You'll just Streisand effect the fuck out of Nazis with that strategy.

The problem with defeating fascism is that it follows the belief that truth is absolute and objective so you need to make decisions around that absolute and objective truth, and that humans aren't exempt from natural selection so every form of strength is a form of goodness.

You can't propagandize them to death, you actually have to prove them wrong with evidence and reasoning, which is always going to be borderline impossible because /pol/ is always right.

You can't shut them down with force or intimidation, because that's only challenging them to a show of force which makes them retaliate in kind.

You're going to lose and lose hard unless you hit them with truth.

  No.34431


  No.34433

>>34429
>You'll just Streisand effect the fuck out of Nazis with that strategy.

It hasn't turned out that way for the past 70 years.

  No.34434

>>34433
People are waking up and questioning why freedom of speech is limited by "hate speech" and how all jewish owned news is pushing anti-nationalism and Hitler hating while promoting degeneracy and filth.

Anarchy is against the nature of human way of functioning in society and it is only introduced as chaotic elememt to brake things down and enable new overlords and kingpins to emerge.
They then create violence and crime to further their plans.

  No.34435

>>34434
>People are waking up

people "woke up" in the late 40s as well. Antifa destroyed their organization and nowadays most people have never heard of the BUF.

>why freedom of speech is limited by "hate speech"


in most western countries, it's not. You can be as hateful as you want and as long as you don't make a threat, you can't be charged criminally. Additionally, you can't be charged on the suspicion that you *might* make a threat. Of course that all gets thrown out the window when you are doing something that might harm the State...

>and how all jewish owned news is pushing anti-nationalism and Hitler hating while promoting degeneracy and filth.


"quack quack quack quack"

  No.34436

>>34435
>in most western countries, it's not.
I can't tell if you're completely misinformed or lying through your teeth.

Ake Green in Sweden was arrested for saying homosexuality was an "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society."

A man (whose name I forget) was arrested under hate speed during the Je suis Charlie debacle for making a cartoon satirizing Jews instead of Muslims.

Geert Wilders, a politician, was charged with inciting hatred against Moroccans for saying that he wanted fewer Moroccan immigrants.

Paul Watson was arrested for including the following Churchill quote in a speech: 'Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith."

Tim Burton, a British radio host, was charged with racially-aggravated harassment after describing someone as "a mendacious grievance-mongering taqiyya-artist."

Victoria Ayling, a member of UKIP, was brought under police investigation for referring to her ex-husband as a "tranny."

  No.34437

>>34436
arrest != charges. Either way that's the law in most places, you can debate whether it was applied correctly or not

  No.34438

>>34437
>arrest != charges.

>>34435
>You can be as hateful as you want and as long as you don't make a threat, you can't be charged criminally.

good thing we were talking about charges then :^)

  No.34439

>>34434
Please;

>Explain how Jews own the media

>And promote Hitler hating and degeneracy
>Define a degenerate action

  No.34446

>>34439
>>34439

>explain to me how jews own the media

http://rense.com/general21/bet.htm
https://youtu.be/v09h2gqhnKM

>and promote hitler hating and degeneracy

Ever seen or heard of Hollywood blockbuster movie depicting horrible scenes in camps of Soviet Russia and Communist China? Depicting 20 million and 80 million being slaughtered?
Now I know that you try to find movies to prove me wrong, and while you're at it try to look at how many times these jewish owned media companies push their anti hitler propaganda with movies and documentaries and shows.
It went soo far that now we have Godwin law. Media is saturated to brim with "Hitler is so bad" that we have a Godwin Law. Is there law against saying how Mao Zedung is bad? How jewish Stalin killed 20 million?

>and degeneracy

Twerking? "Fuck da police"? LGBTQPFDSWE?
Anarchy? Totally not degenerate opinions, right?

>define degenerate action

Dictionary.com says "degenerate" means:y
>to fall below a normal or desirable level inphysical, mental, or moral qualities;deteriorate:

Isnt it degenerate for "fat acceptance"? Isnt it degenerate to promote idea of "healthy of every size"? Isnt it degenerate that salon.com promotes pedophilia and incest now under the banner "love is love"?
Isnt it mentally degenerate to fall down to level of child and bully dictionary.com over twitter to change wording on their page like Orwell wanted?
Isnt it morally degenerate to allow kids (that still dont know what they want to do in life) to take hormones that will change their natural body physiology?

Degenerate action by my opinion is everything that squashes on groups goal of achieving that Ubermensch goal. Degeneracy is just that, de -generation. It kills upon cultural moral ethical pillars of society until you start questioning the validity of time and space, whether a male is a male or is he a woman because in his mind he is, whether children that arent capable of coherent thought are able to change their whole lives or that illegal immigrants shouldn't just camp at Mecca (where there are thousands of tents capable of carrying up to 1 million people for those muslims that come every year for few weeks) but should instead cross 8 borders to get to a country that will give them free food money and shelter just on simple virtue that they are alive and brown.
Degeneracy is destroying philosophical pretenses of you, your family and your nation till there is nothing after few generations.

  No.34447

>>34435
No need for commenting other things, someone else did that for me but...

>"quack quack quack quack"

Is rather intellectually dishonest.

If you want to say something just say it. If you however dont want to say that I am wrong (because you know that I am right and I can shower you with evidence) and instead just want to bring down discussion to shitposting level of emotional child then better not say anything.

  No.34453

File: 1470027919588.png (1.01 MB, 200x200, Peter Kropotkin- The Conquest of Bread.pdf)

If you're gonna be an anarchist, might as well read up on some anarchist theory.

Personally, I find 'The Conquest of Bread' by Peter Kropotkin to be enlightening, however a good gasp of Marx's critiques of Capitalism is necessary for any coherent leftist worldview. I've never been able to find a good condensation of Capital that includes just the essentials, anyone know of a good one?

  No.34472

File: 1470032397483.png (851.04 KB, 200x100, ‭r░g░n░r░t░░n.gif)

>>34439
>Define a degenerate action
Not the Lain you're replying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneration_theory

>Social degeneration was a widely influential concept at the interface of the social and biological sciences in the 19th century. Degenerationists feared that civilization might be in decline and that the causes of decline lay in biological change.


"Degenerative" acts result in massively-scaled reductions in biological fitness or gene flow/transfer of one or more civilizations or the ecology in which they rely upon for survival.

Interactions communicating ideas, media or data between non-local entities are subjective and beneficial in creating new associations between genetically unrelated individuals. Geographically detached free expression of information/ideas/art/culture hastens rates of non-local gene flow, decentralises disease resistance allowing higher population density, spreads beneficial intellectual/physical traits, reduces maladaptive traits, and can't qualify as "degenerative"; ideas are subjective abstractions. Biological notions like degeneration don't apply to non-living subjective abstractions like ideas or art.

Large-scale acts degrading genetic diversity of civilizations or the ecology they survive on are degenerate. These acts result in discrimination against carriers of adaptive traits like those promoting creativity, curiosity, or intelligence. Creation of violent or intolerant police states destroy cultural and social tendencies of a nation by selecting against the non-violent, increasing violence, famine, habitat destruction and increased resource consumption. Pollution, wars, depletion of local food sources, and restrictions on freedom of movement or association are all degenerative acts. Irradiation of people, food/water supplies and environments arbitrarily alters the DNA of living cells in nearly all non-radiotrophic organisms. Radioactive or toxic contamination are highly degenerative.

>These ideas derived from pre-scientific concepts of heredity with Lamarckian emphasis on biological development through purpose and habit. Degeneration concepts were often associated with authoritarian political attitudes, including militarism and racial science, as well as with fears of national decline.


Nations rise and fall as a result of ecological productivity, genetic diversity, and habitability. Does a nation meet its survival needs allowing transfer of genetic information from one generation to the next? Is entry/exit easy in order to avoid domestic monoculture? Does a nation allow the freedom of association necessary to back-up genetic info to non-locals? We can define these provisions as "generate" in biological terms, as the opposite results in a tendency towards domestication, neoteny (ie: autism), decreased resistance to disease, and recessive maladaptive traits, such as sickle cell anemia. Decentralized gene flow from one locale to another creates genetic back-ups of beneficial mutations, such as alleles necessary for producing lactase in populations consuming lactose.

Why we don't have extraterrestrial civilization? We've sent people to the moon, but the environment lacks oxygen, food and water. It's subject to extreme cosmic radiation, impacts, and heat. It lacks an atmosphere. Not spreading to extraterrestrial locales and creating habitable environments while degrading our own is inherently degenerate.

  No.34484

File: 1470041128759.png (91.78 KB, 200x27, left libertarianism.jpg)

So how does anarchism work if people are self-interested? People inherently want to be better than other people to seek out a better mate, which is why if given the opportunity they will choose to be selfish rather than sharing. Can someone explain where I messed up in my logic? Pic is basically the same argument.

  No.34492

>>34363
>There is no smoker community recruiting people.
Yes there is. Namely the tobacco industry. Obviously they want to recruit new smokers. The bans on smoking advertising were an attempt to prevent them from doing so, precisely by denying tobacco companies a platform to present their case on their terms. Additionally propaganda with the opposite message , keeping smoking for seeming like a reasonable to do, has been run for some time now. It apparently has worked.

>It is not a choice between "no platform" and nothing.

It is also not a choice between only "no platform" and anything else. I'm not against using other tactics too. I'm still waiting to hear what you think people should do to prevent fascist ideology from taking hold of a population. The way you talk it seems that whether or not fascism rises is fated by the gods. Would you prefer to wait until when fringe far right groups don't seem like a few harmless (and they aren't harmless now either way) outsiders anymore, and we have to use stronger tactics to resist them.

>Of course you can influence it. "No platform" does influence it. Just not for the better. The window of what is publicly acceptable is not the same as the window of what people believe and the second doesn't just blindly follow the first.

You don't explain how it's not for the better here. It isn't necessary that there is some one to one correspondence between "no platform" and the window of beliefs or whatever. First, to some extent, it doesn't matter what people believe if the people around them wont let them to act on it and tell them to STFU when they start talking about Jews controlling the world or at least ignore them.
Furthermore, I would encourage everyone in this thread and on lainchan to not engage with people who are throwing typical far-right talking points out for discussion.

>Quite successfully as well but they didn't do it via trying to deny their opposition a platform.

People who already have the ability to manipulate the media on a large scale don't need to actively deny their radical opposition a platform in the same way. They deny others a platform by simply keeping the spotlight on them as much as possible. And his campaign is not above such tactics when he himself has called for violence against people who even seem as though the would speak against him at his rallies. They also ban media personnel who might disagree with them from their events. You might say that there is nothing you could have done to deny Drumpf a platform, but there are many people who could have each time he did and said something intimating a fascist worldview. To the extent they didn't, they were complicit in the political window moving to the right, and invigorating those on the far right now only just beyond it.
It is very likely there are many people now who think banning Muslims from entering the US is a good idea than would have even considered such a policy before. Even if they hated or were terribly afraid of Muslims, it seemed outside of the window of political possibility until there was a man running for president presenting it to them. If a man with such policies were more vigorously rejected by those who had the power to prevent him from broadcasting his message, those people would have been right in thinking such policies were not possible. This is the problem with giving fascists a platform. They get people who already have some vague feelings like them or are just generally frustrated to coalesces around a specific action. Any fascist will tell you that this is what they want when they talk about people 'waking up'. I would rather people wake up to something other than the call of white nationalism.
In general, fascists absolutely want to deny their opposition a platform for expressing their views though. Do you think that they simply waste their efforts here? I doubt it.

cont.

  No.34493

cont.

>No. My point was only that people still make mistakes, even if they're used to the internet.

So people make mistakes. I fail to see that making a best effort to get nazis out of your community is a mistake. The very least that could be done to not give nazis a platform on a website is to not argue with with them anymore than you would argue with someone saying that aliens were controlling their thoughts. It's obviously very difficult to get people to coalesce around such tactics, however.

>On the one hand we can and stormfront is still going strong, growing even.

But that is exactly my point. People are giving fascist talking points a platform all over the western world these days.
>empirically verify the expressions that you cannot see
I don't care about these. I only care about the expressions that occur in public, or when they can be rejected by the public. I care about the ideas of people in stormfront beining successful communicated to people totally outside of their community who are scared an looking for any answers at all.
>What is disallowed in public is spread in private.
It's sure is a lot easier to spread it in pubilc on the biggest platforms possible though. I don't exactly long for the goverment to be more repressive of Anarchist views so that I can attract millions to my cause by printing a few dozen shitty zines on a samizdat in a cave.

>Me publicly saying "I'm not letting you on because you're fascists" is going to cause so much noise that they'd get less publicity by just letting them on.

What you stratigically choose to do in any particular circumstance doesn't mean "no platform" is in general a bad idea. It makes no sense to "no platform" nazis in Germany in 1933, because things are far past the point where that tactic is relevant. In any case the idea of "just giving them more publicity" is also flawed. First you are also drawing attention to the idea of not giving such people a platform, to your opinion of their views, and to the pubilic at large that there are such people with political power where you live. If you can draw the situation to the attention of a group where more people agree with your point of view than theirs you will have gained something.

cont.

  No.34494

cont.
>Again, no. That's headline material
I don't mean make an obvious fool of yourself. I mean to do things like gather a group of like minded students to bring the views of the speaker to the attention of the administration. Perhaps they weren't fully aware of them before. I'm not asking people to clownishly chain themselves to the doors to the auditorium.
>spread the info that shows they're not what they present themselves to be. Maybe try to become a speaker myself if I felt up to it.
Good. These are useful as well.

>Then they have no place at a university because nobody there wants to hear them,

But don't you see it's not just because nobody wants to hear them. Shitty bands no one likes play at universities all the time. It's that people feel that giving open nazis a platform to air their views is beyond the pale.

>It's not about what I'd do.

Yes it is. I asked what you'd do if you had the power in the situation. You can choose to have him on because probably such a divisive figure would get good ratings, or you can not let a literal grand wizard make his case to thousands of people.


>Are we being invaded?

What do you think? How would you even be able to determine this necessarily if it were done in anything but the most boneheaded way possible? It need not be a coordinated planed event to have the same effect. I assume we will see more and more nazi views here because lainchan is posted on /g/ all the time ( https://rbt.asia/g/?task=search&ghost=&search_text=lainchan ) and there is quite a lot of pol crossover there.


Again, I don't think anyone would be having a problem with this if were were talking about Not giving ISIS a platform. It seems ludicrous to even suggest it because that is basically what everyone is already doing in th western world even if they don't call it that. We don't debate ISIS, we don't broadcast ISIS talking points, we don't acknowledge anything even close to their political program as reasonable (asking all non-muslims to register with the government for example).

  No.34495

>>34364
>but please let's move in a productive direction.
To move in the most productive the direction the corresponding far-right groups must be made less productive at the same time. Otherwise we loose all the ground we make and more because fascist are willing to use much stronger measures to suppress their opposition.

  No.34496

>>34484
This "every man for himself" attitude is rather new, anthropologically speaking. There has always been competition but also cooperation in human history and prehistory. I'm a self-interested person and choose to ally myself with other self-interested people so we can work together, selfishly, together, towards common goals.

  No.34516

File: 1470073239027-0.png (12.07 MB, 200x200, [Max_Stirner]_The_Ego_and_its_Own(BookZZ.org).pdf)

File: 1470073239027-1.png (113.54 KB, 152x200, Max Stirner.png)

>>34484
It all starts with Stirner. I've attached the PDF, but Marx touched on the same topics while being significantly more influential and less of a meme. This is just relevant because Stirner quite directly addresses self-interest.

A class-stratified society only appeals to the material interests of those in positions of power - people who are not, which is most, are more interested in destroying that, because it would improve their own position.

As for wanting a "better" mate, this doesn't sound like self-interest at all. You could make the case for desiring someone attractive, but if you truly believe you aren't free to escape this desire, and it isn't directly related to your well-being, then it's what Stirner would call a spook - it's in your own interest to dismiss, since it can only limit your freedom and ultimately makes you worse off.

Also, with regards to property it's nonsense that leftists want to do away with it completely. Marx was against private property, but not personal property, other leftists are in the same vein. That's because private property isn't tangible, it's a relationship between people which ultimately relies on its recognition from others for validity. If you "decided to own" something, you would need others to recognize that or else they'd just treat it like you didn't - unless you were actively using it somehow, in which case it would be personal property and not private.

  No.34517

>>34516
Couldn't have put it better myself, although Engels/Marx and Stirner had some very significant differences. Stirner was more of the edgy sort.

  No.34525

File: 1470090494440.png (233.12 KB, 89x200, scabs.jpg)

So much for globalism.

  No.34547

File: 1470133556559.png (424.31 KB, 200x113, onboarding.gif)

>>34525
In the long-term does it really matter either way?

There's a much more effective way to play the migrant card: onboard them.

Migrants are new and lack social connections, so rather than isolating them it would be more constructive to help get them associated with worker's rights organizations, educate them on income inequality and get them protesting (along with everyone else who actually works for a living) for fair compensation across the board.

Do you think the migrants will be thrilled learning that they're undercutting locals and being exploited as cheap human tools for the benefit of an extremely small handful of non-productive wealthy elites?

How would you feel arriving in a rich country with an extremely high cost of living and being underpaid due to your circumstances? You'd feel like a slave.

Vastly increased numbers of workers demanding fair compensation means vastly increased negotiation power.

  No.34552

>>34547
Yup, and it's even been proven that farm workers can organize. ex: Cesar Chavez's National Farm Workers Association.

Unfortunately union structures are so weak and deradicalized worldwide that any chance of overcoming racism and embracing our migrant comrades is a fantasy.

  No.34553

File: 1470159903470-0.png (2.76 MB, 200x200, Standing. The_Precariat__The_New_Dangerous_Class__-Bloomsbury_USA(2011).pdf)

File: 1470159903470-1.png (1.61 MB, 170x200, 1463329160572.png)

>>34552
Well yeah; syndicalism is an outdated organization model in retrospect. The lives of today's workers aren't defined by wage slavery, no; they're defined by a new kind of slavery--one that used to be relegated to a more lumpenized minority. This slavery is typically referred to as "precarity" which merely describes someone living a precarious existence. You see with wage slavery, there is still an ounce of job security to found; there is predictability in being a slave to the wage in which you're earning. With precarity, such job security is nowhere to be found. Where wage slavery reinforces itself by letting workers "choose" what work they felt like doing, precarity reinforces itself by diluting the job pool with too many options. The worlds' elite have ensured there won't be another anarcho-syndicalist revolution by removing the very incentives that might cause workers to value their work more. Like there's a burgeoning fast-food union in my city that held a protest a couple months ago; the fact that unions are being formed for what society still thinks are part-time jobs for adolescents is almost unspeakable to me. Shit like that makes me see why basic income is becoming more popular of an idea.

Globalization killed the proletariat; we precariat now.

  No.34554

>>34547
>>34547
>Migrants are new and lack social connections
Not always though. There are communities in third world nations that have a relationship with a particular community in the first world and workers go back and forth between. They have friends and relatives there.

What the right wing doesn't seem to understand is that not everyone who comes to the country for work is intending to stay there for the rest of their lives.

>>34553
>>34552
The current union structure is based on a model that is over a hundred years old and which got results at the time, when the demands of workers were for example (1) we should get paid and (2) we hope the mine doesn't collapse and kill us so often.

The Canadian Auto Workers tried to unionize Starbucks in Vancouver but here's the problem; if you have an injury or a grievance on the assembly line it will take probably two years at least for it to be sorted, and you might live in a town where the auto plant is the only job worth having, and you're there for the long haul. Who the hell works at Starbucks for two years? It didn't work for those kids slinging coffee because the old union model hasn't adapted to the needs of service industry workers.

The syndicalist model organizes people by industry, not by skill set. When the trains are on strike, so are the trucks, because they are one industry instead of being in competition. A union model for today which would represent people's real needs would recognize that a job posting is often temporary and you might not even be at that job anymore by the time compensation for a grievance is awarded, but are still in the same industry. I don't think syndicalism is outmoded, but no one is trying to organize that way in 2016.

  No.34556

>>34554
if only there was a way to reach large groups of people, perhaps concentrated near to each other in pursuit of a given skill set..

  No.34575

>>34554
I think the IWW would be uniquely suited to adapt to this new model.

  No.34607

>>34484
>>34484
This person is ignoring several things:

1. Anarchism is not a deontological ideology; in contrast to rightism, there are no sacred rights of man from God we have to worship. The freedom in anarchism comes from the absence of social hierarchy, not from the absolute capability to take any action. So it isn't a contradiction to continually disrupt the capitalists. We'll need to expropriate what they "own" now anyway, doing it after the revolution is no different.

2. Capitalism is a societal system; there isn't a way to atomize a single farm and have it participate in capitalism. If the farm is truly self-sufficient then personally I wouldn't be averse to considering it personal property, and it would only need to be expropriated if there was an urgent need for it. But if the farmer needs to tap into the non-capitalist economy to obtain seeds, equipment, labor, etc., and does so without contributing back, you can see the reason why the society would want to intervene.

3. In the above case, it's clear that the first act of coercion was from the farmer, not the anarchists. The community reacting against this is a defensive action.

  No.34610

>>34429
see
>>34433

>The problem with defeating fascism is that it follows the belief that truth is absolute and objective so you need to make decisions around that absolute and objective truth, and that humans aren't exempt from natural selection so every form of strength is a form of goodness.


Truth is absolute and objective. Fascists don't have a monopoly on this, but fascists also don't believe this. Fascism is one of the first post-modern ideologies in that facts and truth themselves are seen by the fascist as subject to change by the whim of the hierarchy. There's no concept of strength, only a concept of usefulness to the social machine.

>You can't shut them down with force or intimidation, because that's only challenging them to a show of force which makes them retaliate in kind.


But we always win in these struggles. That's why /pol/ complains about "antifa thugs".

  No.34618

Funny how you guys blamed the fascists of "pushing an agenda and not caring about the chan" when you guys are doing same exact thing.

You are pushing your political ideological goals on a board dedicated to cyberpunk aesthetics, and what for? Total dystopian future filled with chaos?

Anarchy is unsustainable unstable social structure. It only leads to fracturing of society, formation of smaller gangs and annihilation of that society by bigger more cohesive group.

Through out history, tribal "socialism" only survived, and that is only way to survive.

Globalism, miscenigation, mass immigration, multiculturalism, anarchy leads to neurotic anxiety filled base population with a lot of in societal fighting because of differences.

  No.34622

>>34618
If you think anarchists just want chaos, you are severely wrong. Anarchists want there to be no state. What does that mean, exactly?

Well, a state has two main characteristics. One, it is sovereign. A state claims sovereignty over a piece of land and a group of people, that is, people have to follow the state's rules. Whether the state is democratic or not doesn't really matter, because that ends up with some segment of the population always being ruled without their own consent. Two, a state has a monopoly on legal lethal force. A state is allowed to kill whomever it wants for any reason, although usually those reasons are listed in some documents and they don't deviate from them except in certain circumstances.

There is a difference between a *state*(which has been described above) and a *government*, which could be described as a formal set of rules for making and enforcing laws. Almost all states have governments, but not all governments are states. If a government doesn't claim sovereignty or have a monopoly on violence, it isn't a state. A government can even field an army and not be a state. Examples of this in history are the various anarchist armies in Spain during the Spanish Civil War and the Black Army in the Ukraine Free Territories during the Russian Revolution. Both had their flaws of course.

Naturally, there are limits to how far anarchists are willing to go. Almost nobody thinks that if one claims not to be subject to a government, they should be allowed to do anything they want. Examples would include murdering people or destroying ecosystems. Further, most anarchists would say that private property is a form of statehood; that is, in the absence of all other states, private property then grants the owner to sovereignty over their property and a monopoly on lethal force in their property. Such a system is known as feudalism.

I expect a poorly-reasoned retort, but idgaf, maybe a lurker or two learned something.

  No.34623

>>34622
>Almost nobody thinks that if one claims not to be subject to a government, they should be allowed to do anything they want. Examples would include murdering people or destroying ecosystems

If there isn't a government to enforce the laws, who will enforce it? And who is to say that those people have the rights to enforce it on other people over someone else?

>private property is bad

You talk the talk, but just like socialists who say that we need to redistribute the wealth, you don't walk the walk.
I BET that your house is private property, yet you advocate for abolishion of private property (or at least that was my impression).
Who will then stop a guy from just claiming your house as his? You? Hahah, dont make me laugh. See? The anarchy system doesnt include the existance of government and private property, creates no one to enforce the rules and therefore there will be guys who will just cause mayhem.

Anarchists don't want chaos, yea sure, you want maximum freedom from the OPRESSION (nice sjw word) of the po-po and "the man".
Well, my rhetor is always simple and to the point. What is stopping you from going to somalia where existance of the state is minimal? What is stopping you from going off the grid and going on in the wilderness of amazon? What is stopping you from making your anarchy dream a reality?

  No.34624

>>34623
>If there isn't a government to enforce the laws, who will enforce it?

like I said, anarchy doesn't mean no government.

>And who is to say that those people have the rights to enforce it on other people over someone else?


like I said, that's the entire anarchist argument.

>I BET that your house is private property


private property != personal property. Private property is used to generate profit, personal property is stuff that people use.

>Who will then stop a guy from just claiming your house as his?


everyone who agrees that my house is mine.

>The anarchy system doesnt include the existance of government


did you even read my post?

>What is stopping you from going to somalia where existance of the state is minimal?


Somalia isn't anarchy, it a lot of tiny states ruled by warlords.

>What is stopping you from going off the grid and going on in the wilderness of amazon?


Because if I did nothing to change the system the amazon will be cut down.

  No.34629

>>34624
>everyone who agrees that my house is mine.
Me and my 3 buddies with sawed off shotguns agree that your house belongs to me. Now we can do this the easy way or the hard way, the choice is yours.


All you said is "durr state isnt government based on my obscure dictionary and interpretation" then you went around in a circle by adding that "personal property" and "private property" bullshit with "generate profit" shit that has no basis in anarchist mind (because anarchists only have no state in mind, right?)
That sounds more like socialist ie neo communist bullshit.
But I honestly liked "its da what people use durr".

But do please explain to me difference between state and government so I can point to dictionary/wikipedia to show you wrong

  No.34630

>>34629
and here's the poorly-reasoned retort. Byte kids, hope you learned something because 34629 sure didn't

  No.34631


  No.34634

>>34629
Well if you were to try and do something stupid like that be prepared for the whole surrounding community to attack you and bring you down. All you guys can do is fear monger. Also most of us would prefer to have a whole arsenal of weapons and ammunition so again good luck with being the scum of society there.

I consider state to be all authority, and government is just government. State encompasses big corporations and upholds the current agenda.

Neo communist bullshit? Dude most of us Anarchists end goal is the formation of a true Communist territory. Not USSR but more like Catalonia and the Russian Freedom Territory. Course you probably think capitalism is just the best system in the world and that Communism just "doesn't work in real life." Bitch it does work and the only reason neither Catalonia and the Freedom Territory are no longer a thing is because of asshole fascists and tyrants. My hope is that we can get most citizens on board to smash the state and end this freak show of a world we're living in.

  No.34641

I kinda skimmed through the debate over personal property and private property. Isn't personal and private basically the same thing?

Maybe I'm thinking about it on a very simple level, but I'm having a hard time being able to tell the difference. If two brothers have their own computer, isn't it kinda pointless to make the distinction between private and personal?

Or does this analogy not really work?

  No.34644

>>34634
Funny how you complain about fascists and tyrants when you bring up Catalonia, where the anarchist occupiers literally tortured and murdered people until the end of the civil war. That sounds pretty tyrannical to me, friendo.

  No.34645

>>34484

I don't think people want to be better then everyone else. Rather, they just want their lives to be better. Capitalism has a way of pitting people against eachother while also sponsoring an ideology that maintains that sort of behavior. In game theory it's been shown that people should betray eachother in prisoner's dilemma type situations but reality shows that people don't do that. This is likely because humans are social creatures but also the dynamics of the prisoner's dilemma change when you take time into account and it turns out more cooperative strategies perform better.

  No.34648

>>34645
>I don't think people want to be better then everyone else.

Then you are no better than a child and are ignorant of how humans act.

  No.34649

>>34648
Have you ever seen a society free of social hierarchies and capitalism? The only human nature is to survive, which requires being better in this shit fest of a system we live in.

  No.34653

>>34648
Calling marxists "out of touch with reality" and the like is incredibly ignorant of the fact that they were deconstructing the very ideology you espouse. Please read up on base and superstructure and then get back to us.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs.htm

  No.34658

>>34634
>for the whole surrounding community to attack you and bring you down
Isnt that like "tribal socialism"... isnt that what I was proposing?
>all you can do is fear monger
nope, just saying that if anarchy came today that I would be the first to use that to my best advantage, thats all.

>most of us would prefer whole arsenal of guns

Those guns means jack shit when tribal socialism comes into play. 50 guys with baseball bats > 1 guy with AR 15

>government is just government.

The funniest thing about you guys is that your rhetoric makes no sense unless you change definitions of words and add your own agenda filled meaning to those words.

I asked before, and I will ask again, what is clear distinctive property that shows how government =/= state? Is it the judicial system? What is it?
The guy before said the same thing, "durr state and government arent the same". Explain.

>you probably think capitalism is just the best system in the world and that Communism just "doesn't work in real life."

The basis of communistic beliefs is that people are equal. That proletariat is no different than the bourgeoisie. That both of these groups only came to their position because environmental factors or exploitation. That is why Black Lives Matters is pushed by both anarchists and communists. You believe in total equality of all classes of people (whether they are gender based, race based or economic class based) and that is why you push for "everyone is equal and everyone should have same amount of money, because that is fair and without exploitation".

Newsflash, people are different, and your "exploitation free" systemdoesnt only destroy big corp that ruin the world, but also destroy those middle man business people who work their asses off to survive and make money.

People arent equal, and there are differences even under same subspecies of man.

>is because of asshole fascists and tyran

My point is exactly that. Anarchy is unstable because there will always be tyrants and fascists and outside gangs that will take over.
Tribal socialistic system can only be beaten by better tribal socialistic system. People with cohesive neighbourhood that take care of each other for instance like you pointed out before.

>that we can get most citizens on board to smash the state and end this freak show of a world we're living in.

And then what? Not asking nationally, but internationally. What do you expect will happen when other states around the world see what happened in US? Do you think they will allow that? That they wont sweeten their moustaches on the situation? That Chinese secret society wont just say "okay, US is unstable, we need to take over because they owe us a lot of money, or else they wont pay us ever".

  No.34659

>>34649
I have seen people outside this capitalistix system, and their natural way of acting is what is called "tribal socialism". A leader that is strongest and smartest, that gets most resources and women, and his followers that get shelter and protection. Cohesive group with same goal. Strong socialistic undertones but with leader at top. That is how human behaved before, thats how will they continue to act.

  No.34660

>>34644
They will just ignore that and continue to say how there wasnt anything wrong with Catalonia.

  No.34661

File: 1470324659975.png (15.85 KB, 186x186, stirnerjerusulem.jpg)

>>34644
>>34660
There were organized killings by Anarchists, against those that had previously killed Anarchists, the latter of which were likely to support killing the former again. Many of the organized killings by anarchists were done as an act of revenge against the industrialists that enslaved them; they were literal examples of propaganda of the deed. If you want a better example of this type of "anarchy" then look into the illegalists in Italy at around the same time or today's insurrectionary anarchists. There is nothing new in class warfare; the same logic is applied in defense of say, black minorities rioting in the wake of perceived police brutality. It doesn't matter whether not the person in question had a criminal history; what matters are the institutions that necessitated his criminal tendencies to begin with as that is the root of the problem. This is why many leftists (not just anarchists) sometimes view these killings as justified because, no matter how tragic, it's but a microcosm in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html

This^ piece provides a good counterargument to the so-called "tyranny" imbued by the anarchists of Catalonia.

  No.34662

>>34661
oop, here's the caplan piece that which that spunk text is referring to: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

  No.34663

>>34644
>anarchist occupiers

the fascists were the occupiers, fool. The anarchists were home-grown and while they weren't perfect, they did have massive popular support.

>>34648

I've only met a few people in my life who I think are more competitive than they are cooperative. Usually, successful people are also highly cooperative, because they're not so much competing with everyone else as they are competing with themselves.

>>34658
>Isnt that like "tribal socialism"... isnt that what I was proposing?

no, because people don't have to be organized into family groups to work together.

>nope, just saying that if anarchy came today that I would be the first to use that to my best advantage, thats all.


so you're a looter?

>Those guns means jack shit when tribal socialism comes into play. 50 guys with baseball bats > 1 guy with AR 15


right, so the community is stronger than the attackers in this case.

>I asked before, and I will ask again, what is clear distinctive property that shows how government =/= state? Is it the judicial system? What is it?


this has been explained before. A state claims sovereignty over its citizens and its land. In a way, the state 'owns' those things, and if some people in a state decide they're not in the state anymore they're usually met with military force. A government is much more basic, it's a system where people organize themselves. If you think we can't use those words for those meanings, well tough shit, we're talking about those definitions and if you don't like it you can imagine we're using the words "splorch" and "baglag" instead. Doesn't change the argument.

>The basis of communistic beliefs is that people are equal.


the basis of communistic beliefs is that class warfare defines history, and that the interest of the 'lower class' is always to abolish class relations altogether. The rest of that paragraph follows from your mistaken idea of communism, so it's pretty much moot.

>My point is exactly that. Anarchy is unstable because there will always be tyrants and fascists and outside gangs that will take over.


normal states are constantly threatened with tyrants and fascists and outside gangs that will take over, and they are pretty damn stable.

>What do you expect will happen when other states around the world see what happened in US?


an invasion, probably. Nobody said it would be easy.

>>34659
>I have seen people outside this capitalistix system, and their natural way of acting is what is called "tribal socialism"

that's funny, because there's a *huge* variation of ways that people have organized themselves. In some cultures, people with power are expected to remain celibate. In others, women have most of the power. It's almost like this "tribal socialism" you keep touting around is just one way of many that people lived in the past.

  No.34664

>>34663
slight clarification here:

>Usually, successful people are also highly cooperative


I mean as in, like, the most socially successful people. You get lots of money and power by being competitive but everyone hates you.

  No.34667

>>34663
>they did have massive popular support.
Usually coercion and murder get you plenty of support, it's just not genuine. It's based on fear of being strung up in the town square and not from honest sympathy to the so-called anarchists.

But, you know, you're just like >>34660 said, and just like the tankies your kind seem to despise, lol.

  No.34668

>>34667
I've never heard of that. Sauce?

  No.34678

File: 1470346750550.png (152.75 KB, 200x171, thesoviets.jpg)

>>34667
>Usually coercion and murder get you plenty of support, it's just not genuine.
Do they tho; do they /really/? If that were really the case then Daesh wouldn't be floundering as it is--and they're far from anarchistic.
>It's based on fear of being strung up in the town square
No, no it's not; stop throwing horsehoes at us. The dissolution of hierarchical systems may imply "needless" violence but only for a time. This is solely because the populous had only just now become aware of what they're capable of; that's what becoming "class conscious" is all about. It's nothing like the fascists OR the tankies where they seize political power to continually oppress certain groups of people for simply existing. If you feel that your ability to oppress others is being oppressed--your ability to institutionalize social hierarchies, then I'm finding it hard to feel sorry for you. You presumably see this as a form of a tyranny when in most cases shown in catalonia it wasn't; not every slave that wrestled from their wage's shackles turned out to be a murderer in disguise--in fact, most that turned out to be such were never class conscious to begin with.

From a marxist perspective, people like that are merely lumpen--no more than miscreants; a minority of folk with no intention of furthering the goals of socialism. If you worked dynamic hours in ill-suitable conditions for a group of men that, more likely than not, couldn't give a flying fuck about you at the end of the day, are their murders justified? Would you be surprised if they weren't subject to attempted murder? I wouldn't. The same could be said for "ethical" bosses that treated their workers well within the confines of the social hierarchy; such sentiments breed complacency to a system that can disenfranchise workers at any point. Are their murders justified? Yes; that's just how class warfare is. The anarchists of catalonia would've never got to that point had institutionalized social hierarchies existed to begin with.

  No.34679

>>33897
>>33936
A group of anarcho-transhumanists (including Gillis) did another AMA on /r/DebateAnarchism this week btw; check it out: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/4vbm9l/2016_ama_on_anarchotranshumanism/

  No.34686

File: 1470357891882.png (38.03 KB, 200x197, 1463530167636-1.png)

>>34678
Do you have any idea what they did during the Red Terror, which was what I was talking about?

Because if you did you wouldn't be spouting half the memorized rhetoric you are. But no, you're just jumping into somewhere you don't belong because of a perceived threat to one of your anarchist buddies because you don't think he can handle it himself. Fuck off.

  No.34697

>>34678
I'm not that well educated about what happened in Catalonia, but it just seems like you're justifying murder and violence with "muh class conflict". Once a revolution happens and people are free that should just be the end of it, no reprisals, no revenge killing, no non-defensive violence at all. Fighting in a revolution potentially killing people to win a war is not the same as murdering your ex-boss because he treated you shittily; he is no longer the boss and nothing more needs to be done. Anything else is just murder and contributing to a circle of violence.

  No.34699

>>34686
He never heard of it, and what's terrifying, he does not want to know anything confronting his view and pose a threat to a comforting bubble of freedom fighter. Exactly the kind of person to promote red terrr. Ironic.

  No.34702

Guys, keep things on topic. If you have an issue or concern with how the staff is running the site, we have /q/ for a reason, and we're more than happy to discuss any issues anyone has over there.

The OP wanted to have a rational discussion concerning the events that happened in Dallas and Baton Rouge, as well as technology and anarchism.

  No.34723

>>34686
>>34699
>Do you have any idea what they did during the Red Terror, which was what I was talking about?
Yeah, I do. Do you find it surprising? After the Second Spanish Republic was established preceding the War, it sought to strictly be secular by nature by passing laws limiting the political power of the Catholic Church over time. So when things came to stand-still and the church sided with the Nationalists--against social reform after all that time, what else do you think would've happened? There were many elements that polarized each faction which necessitated such atrocities. You can't seriously take a kumbaya stance on these past issues; that denotes a misunderstanding what caused them. It's like you're Captain Hindsight or some shit. "If you didn't want mass murders of priests and businessmen then you shouldn't have advocated for social reform!" Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

While we're on the topic, if we're talking about the Red Terror then you'll remember that anarchists in Russia were also among those who were oppressed for not thinking dialectically.. which in turn caused Leon Trotsky to create Fourth International and the clusterfuck therein.
>>34697
>Once a revolution happens and people are free that should just be the end of it, no reprisals, no revenge killing, no non-defensive violence at all.
Ideally, of course. But that has never been the case especially when the loyalist faction sees no reason to give way to more leftist, democratic means of organization; the Spanish Civil War was a bastard amalgamation of opposing ideologies for both sides. It was a miracle that leftists in the region even managed to put their differences aside for a couple years. If you keep up with contemporary geopolitical conflicts, then there's a reason why the parallels drawn between 1930s' Spain and 2010s' Syria are not without merit. Even today we see the same fears being emphasized over the anarchists in Rojava: https://libcom.org/blog/bloodbath-syria-class-war-or-ethnic-war-03112014
>nothing more needs to be done.
Not true; if institutions that held political power prior to the revolution see any way to restore said power, you can bet they're gonna go for it. But that had nothing to do with the anarchists until after the trashcan of ideology started overflowing.

  No.34724

File: 1470405908101.png (955.55 KB, 200x200, 2016-08-05 14.11.17.png)

>people don't have to be organized into family groups to work together
Nobody is talking about "family groups". We are talking about a tribe, with common goal, working together.
A neighbourhood working together to keep their neighbourhood safe? Tribal socialism.
A pack of looters all helping each other to loot neighbourhoods? Tribal socialism.
A nation of people, funding cops through taxes to have organised effort in eliminating crime all together? Tribal socialism.

In all 3 of these examples there is someone that leads people into these activities.

>so you're a looter?


Im a kind of guy that will survive and make a place for himself in whatever system he is put in, even at expense of others, but I acknowledge that there are better systems and there are worse systems. Anarchy is one of the worst systems out there where I would really need to put high amount of effort and risk to keep my family safe and to help myself survive. Abolishing one state will just fracture things into million little states run by warlords. Thats the whole idea behind "im a looter hehehhe" larping.

>so the community is stronger than the attackers in this case.

If tribe is more cohesive, better organised and has total conviction is same goal it will always overcome the other tribe.

Does neighbourhood community have a sniper on buildings to deter any would be looters?
Does neighbourhood have system and plan of reacting to bigger looting threats?
Is everyone in neighbourhood community ready to die to protect their family and friends?

That tribe will then win.
Thats the whole idea behind tribal socialism.

>and if some people in a state decide they're not in the state anymore they're usually met with military force


Hahahha, you just reminded me of that "sovereign citizen compilation" video on jewtube.
You sound exactly like those people.
You should look into that video, its funny just like you.

>the basis of communistic beliefs is that class warfare defines history, and that the interest of the 'lower class' is always to abolish class relations altogether


Why is it in the interest of lower classes to abolish the class relations all together? Because they believe they are the same as upper classes.
Because the small guy working in factory thinks "why the hell am I working for that guy? Why isnt he working for me?"
Thats why they abolish the idea that there is any class differences to begin with. Because they believe everyone is the same. The upper and lower classes are same under communism, thats why.

>normal states are constantly threatened with tyrants and fascists and outside gangs that will take over, and they are pretty damn stable.


Are you trying to insinuate that anarchist government would be as good of a state in preventing tyrants and fashists? Because history would tell us otherwise.

  No.34725

File: 1470405951219.png (708.35 KB, 200x158, 2016-08-05 13.41.20.png)

>>34724
>an invasion, probably. Nobody said it would be easy

Ahhhh, so we come to juicy stuff. Remember when I said that more cohesive tribe always kills off the smaller shittier tribe? China fucking has state controlled hackers called Red Army that they hack just for sake of national pride. But when Us hackers hack Iran centrifuges they arent doing do with national pride. They arent boasting themselves on CNN and internet forums like red army does. They are doing so because of money and because someone up top told them to.

Us is hanging by a thread of late 60s culture of nuclear family and pride in state.

If it were to ever come to complete elimination of state, no matter how shit that state was, the US would be ground down to pulp and used by other states that prey on them.
The shitty state US is in I blame on AIPAC and jewish parasites that destroyed this country into their slave for Israel.

>In some cultures, people with power are expected to remain celibate. In others, women have most of the power. It's almost like this "tribal socialism" you keep touting around is just one way of many that people lived in the past.


And look how far these groups came to? They only live in history books so that feminists and anarchists can point at them and say "see those few years of history that came and went away in a flash? Those are much better than what we have now".
These ideas you keep touting about sound very good on paper, but through out history only tribal socialism persisted oland won over other tribes. And only tribal socialism with survive in the end.

  No.34726

File: 1470409281703-0.png (506.79 KB, 200x200, FuturePrimitive.pdf)

File: 1470409281703-1.png (388.79 KB, 200x200, kaczynski2.pdf)

File: 1470409281703-2.png (847.34 KB, 200x200, insurrection_english.pdf)

>>34724
This appears to be in response to >>34663 ; also holy shit both of you are terrible at formatting your posts.
>tribal socialism
First off, there is no such thing as hierarchy in socialism and as far as I'm concerned, this "tribal socialism" contains no further definition past the one you gave us earlier in the thread; this is just drivel masquerading as a cohesive point. The "tribalism" with which you're referring to presumably comes from the assertion that social hierarchies are an inevitability--that is, institutionalized social hierarchy will always return because muh human nature. When in reality, tribalism has always been much less hierarchical; it denotes an emphasis on cooperating in an effort to meet everyone's needs, not competition over who is the strongest and smartest. If you want an extreme take on ACTUAL "tribalism" then look into the anarcho-primitivists, most notably the works of John Zerzan and Ted Kaczynski where they advocate a hunter-gatherer lifestyle over any other means of civilization.
>Im a kind of guy that will survive
This social darwinistic take on society runs contrary to socialism itself--not just anarchism. It is fundamentally individualistic and is more in line with radical libertarian thought. Y'know, the kind that refers to its proponents as "anarcho-captialists."
>Abolishing one state will just fracture things into million little states run by warlords
Someone hasn't read his Kropotkin.
>Because they believe everyone is the same.
Unless you believe the upper classes contain a mixture of übermensch then then I don't see your contentions with this.
>Are you trying to insinuate that anarchist government would be as good of a state in preventing tyrants and fashists?
They all did; it was outside meddling that brought the end of the Paris Commune, Catalonia, the Free Territory of Ukraine and soon, the Federation of Northern Syria. The resiliency of anarchism is always an interesting question to answer which is why books such as "The Coming Insurrection" get so much praise. It's also why anarchists are beginning to see why technological advancement may imply anarchism as made evident by the recent developments of anarcho-transhumanism; http://blueshifted.net/faq/
You should give "A Day Mournful and Overcast" a read sometime; it's an account of the Iron Column's resistance in being integrated with the Stalinist, Republican army towards the end of the Spanish Civil War: https://libcom.org/library/day-mournful-overcast-iron-column-uncontrollable

  No.34731

File: 1470410545971.png (1.01 MB, 200x158, 2016-08-05 13.50.25.png)

>>34726
>tribalism has always been much less hierarchical; it denotes an emphasis on cooperating in an effort to meet everyone's needs, not competition over who is the strongest and smartest.

Scientific research in geneology concluded that only 40% of males succesfully reproduced whilst 80% of females reproduced.(look it up if you dont believe me)
What does that tell us about how humans behaved through out history? It tells us that people werent monogamous, but polygamous. That few males had most if not all women, that these women were giving themselves to most strong and most influential alpha male, and that the guy had most resources with which he succesfully funded his whole family and tribe.

Therefore who was most alpha in tribe would have control over the resources of the tribe.

>Kropotkin

A guy before said himself that Somalia is run by warlords, mainly because there is no bigger state.

Deal with it, every inch of land is owned and controlled by someone. There is no anarchist utopia out on the end of world for you to find , and even if it were then it would be controlled by someone else.

>Unless you believe the upper classes contain a mixture of übermensch then then I don't see your contentions with this.


Guy before said that communism isnt about equallity of classes, and now you insinuate that it is.

The point I am trying to make is that Donald Drumpf is 60 year old geezer that sleeps 4 hours a night and works tirelessly on shoestring budget playing media by sensationalistic dance that they dance by and worked into GOP nomination.

Now, I dont believe an ordinary man can do that.

>. It's a myriad of problems

A sly attempt of evading. All you have to say "its da system mayynnnn" and not point at any single petson or organisation because that doesnt run in your narrative.

>we dont need socialism people are generous


I dont understand this point nor do I understand why you call me anarcho capitalist. Could you add up to the point?

>all those books you cited

Will look into them
Atm in vacation

  No.34735

File: 1470416672742.png (65.32 KB, 194x200, XGDoPr3.png)

>>34731
>It tells us that people werent monogamous, but polygamous.
Yeah, cooperative; the individualistic tendencies that seemingly necessitate competition amount to monogamous relationships. One of the biggest fears perpetuated by the Red Scare was polyamory because of its association with leftist modes of thought. The choices that led women to choose "alpha" males are no more than cultural; it isn't inherently hierarchical as you're suggesting. Joe Heinrich's studies in anthropology have shown us as much; https://www.adbusters.org/article/is-there-such-a-thing-as-human-nature/
>Therefore who was most alpha in tribe would have control over the resources of the tribe.
That's nonsense; those who have control of the "tribe" are those who have accumulated enough capital to reinforce that control. It isn't a social inclination; property is theft, remember?
>A guy before said himself that Somalia is run by warlords, mainly because there is no bigger state.
Up until the 90s, Somalia had experienced corrupt democracy and despotic communism through and through. By the time they overthrew their communist dictator they only sought to go back to how things were before westerners got in the way and that, was a more primitive form of government. Kritarchy, I think it's called; as in the rule of judges (known as Xeer) siphoned through the power of a countless number of warring clans. Such political power was exerted at the expense of the Somalian people; it was by no means anarchist. The transitional government that was formed in the wake of the Somali Civil War has since given away to a more permanent one four years ago and has been mopping up most of the remaining belligerents ever since. Somalia was never anarchist and it's even less now; pls no third worldism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBjblKtj1ag
>Guy before said that communism isnt about equallity of classes, and now you insinuate that it is.
The abolition of social classes it the goal of anarchists, communists and anarcho-communists alike; communism gets a bad rep because of pic related--justifiably so.
>Now, I dont believe an ordinary man can do that.
You must be incredibly naive, then; if you think a man's demagoguery is deserving of respect then I don't know what else to tell you.
>A sly attempt of evading.
I could say the same for you; only replace "it's the system mayynnnn" with "it's da juuice." I think that's a rabbit hole deserving of another thread.
>Will look into them
Please do; I disagree with the primitivists more than the insurrectionists but both make interesting points worth considering.
>>34732
>you are doing an amazing job at parroting big buzzwords and soundbites.
Eh, I wouldn't say terms you've never seen before are buzzwords but w/e. :P

  No.34736

>>34735
oh and glhf;dd on your vacation, lainon.

  No.34738

so the basic argument against anarchism seems to be "as it has been, so it always shall be", which is

a) poor reasoning, we're rapidly approaching the point where scarcity is a thing of the past which would probably change the basic human psyche, and

b) trying to paint this picture that human pre-historical society was uniform, which flies in the face of almost all research.

  No.34768

>>>/civ/ exists now, please create a thread over there.