/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

>Technofascist here.

You people with the exception of >>50102 are scum, living off the the tech created by fascist or psudo-fascist labor. You're a living joke. You feed off the computation and networking pioneered by fascist/capitalist men to lethargically puke out your limp Bolshevik dribble on the back of technology you do not even understand. Europe deserves muslim rape gangs, You doomed us all to hell on earth.

>>50128

I use refurbished technology so kill yourself.

Take this (((you)))

>>50128

>Fascist technology

Modern technology is the work of democratic governments (primarily the United States) and communist governments (primarily Russia during it's soviet period).

Fascists, like Hitler and Mussolini, have very little to show for in terms of technological advancements that do anything other than directly harming people.

You'll understand when you grow up, kid.

>>50090

>thinks definitions stem from something other than how they're used

>not realizing "literally" is now used as figurative hyperbole

>"durrr ur exaggerated statistic isn't real!!!"

You're right. The number is probably 100%. As soon as I turned 18 I stopped using /pol/ and realized larping as a nazi online was pretty autistic.

Stop. Ignore the US. Its a cesspit of endless polarization and strawmanning. Dont lay any thought to whatever bullshit happens there.

>>50153

You try so hard to defend your weak ass arguments it's both funny and sad.

Have a good day.

>>50110

a voluntary market cannot coerce and states are coercive by definition

>>50173

>f-fucking try hard!

;)

>>50174

I don't think a voluntary market can exist witouth transforming itself in capitalism if someone has the means of production.

And I know that states are coercitive, but a federal organizations in wich killing people and such is illegal while leaving the most possible freedom to individuals is possible

>>50152

>jet engine aircraft, hydrogen bombs, computation, and networked computers don't matter and are basically evil according to my debased morality.

One of the beautiful aspects of eugenics is that it prevents posts like you'res.

>>50152

You are out of your mind if you think soviet russia invented literally anything that was not derivative of the united states at any point in the twentieth century. They copied pasted US tech until they reached their capability to comprehend then collapsed.

>>50189

where did you get this information from?

>>50095

>Is there a real left in America or is burgerstan that fucked?

There's no "real" anything in America, or in Europe for that matter. All mainstream political movements in the West have been controlled by globalist business interests since at least the 1950s.

>>50060

>we just have them in a so little number that they matter nothing

Not a murrican nor a yuro but thats fucking bullshit: your governments dont give a shit about freedom of speech and have been lobbying for access to data on foreign servers, meanwhile your leftists are begging these megacorps and shady government agencies to protect them from scary nazi memes on normiebook even more than leftists in murrica do

Also the burger left hates facebook now because it helped president cheeto win the election (with the exact same method obongo used "but lets not talk about that m'kay?")

>>50065

The mainstream left and right stay on social media, you got leftypol here which is as much cancer as pol is (except with even more gay cocksucking)

>>50070

Whats the difference?

>>50095

>libertarian-communist umbrella

What the fuck?

>>50095

>Lainchan has the same freedom of speech but is not righty, being righty, in my experience, is only the norm in lager and known communities

/cyber/ isn't "righty" either, the problem is your worldview is fucked, you use the same mental framework of the new left for which anything that deviates from the norm (including the old left) is "righty" because they might pretend they support free speech but IRL they are more pro-censorship than the right wing from 70 years ago

>>50106

>the other demands domination by private institutions

Not really, they are anti-monopolies for example, problem is that just like communism always end in totalitarian mass murder there is the possibility libertarianism ends in megacorps ruling everything but then again we don't know because libertarianism has never been actually tried unlike communism, but then again the more libertarian countries out there are doing pretty well while even communist-ish countries like venezuela are a fucking trash fire

>>50210

norway is as 'communist' as venezula is, and yet their standards of living are the highest in the world.

not to mention, without the nationalised oil industry venezula would have literally nothing to lose, like africa and much of the rest of south america

>>50224

>norway is as 'communist' as venezula is, and yet their standards of living are the highest in the world.

this is because there is no one-size-fits-all government or economic system. different things work for different people.

>This whole thread, an argument on left/right politics

"There is no 'Right' or 'Left', there is only an 'Up' or a 'Down'." – Ronnie Regan

You people need to realize there is only truthful primatives, then move from there. The concept of Right vs left is a false dictontomy. Personally, I am a National Socialist. The gung-hoe reaction is "Cult of the Right-Wing". This is a false endevor. This is one of the reasons I do not support the "Alt-Right". By naming themselves an Alternative form of the Right-Wing, they have already shown their own ignorance.

You have universal truths independent of the concept of "Right" and "Left". a better model is the "Political Compass", but this is still poor. Once you admit to independent truths, and dismiss the pettyness of the current understanding of "Political Science" (heh) will you be able to truly understand society.

National Socialism is the answer I have come to. It is not a cult of the Right-Wing, and those that hold it as truth, and believe it is are wrong.

American left cares more about identity politics than anything else. They want to make sure that poverty and misery is distributed evenly rather than eliminating it. Facebook may have blackmail on an entire generation, they may experiment on the public, and influence elections, but they also love gays and trannies and women, and that's the important thing after all.

>>50108

I'm literally an egoist anarchist I couldn't be more of an individualist. In my post I am defining communism as "a classless, stateless, moneyless society."

>>50210

I understand what you're saying, but I think when we start talking about "libertarianism has never been tried" then people will also argue that true communism has never been tried, and at that point the argument becomes over definitions.

>>50291

>I'm literally an egoist anarchist

Except by saying "i cannot be X unless others are X" you already defined yourself as a collectivist, and, therefore, not egoist.

>>50224

>norway is as 'communist' as venezula is

Nigger what? we're fucking swamped with venezuelan refugees here, their country is nothing like norway which BTW has one of the highest ranks in economic/business freedom in the world

Better welfare != socialism, you still got billionaires in norway, the gov does not own the means of production nor steal shit from its owners when it feels like it which is what chavez did.

>much of the rest of south america

See you don't know fucking shit about that place, you have to be a literal retard to compare places like brazil to the average african country

>>50278

No, this is because norway is 100% capitalist and the government wont take your shit away nor you have president-for-life positions

>>50286

>They want to make sure that poverty and misery is distributed evenly rather than eliminating it.

Not evenly among them

IMHO they have been coopted by megacorps to talk about race because at the end of the 90s the left was all about class problems, anti-globalization and the wealth gap

Now its only race problems, sucking the dick of globalization and talking about the fake-ass wage gap instead

>>50291

>"libertarianism has never been tried" then people will also argue that true communism has never been tried

Except it has, many times, meanwhile there isnt even ONE country in the world that defines itself as libertarian, nor there has ever been

Before democracy there was only absolute monarchy and tyrants, there was never a libertarian state

>>50310

>norway is 100% capitalist

Mostly agree with you, but here you are pushing a bit too far. There is taxation, legislation and victimless crimes, so even if it was pretty libertarian, we aren't talking about 100%.

>>50298

How do I make this more clear, I oppose institutions which attempt to exert power over me, including capitalism, state, etc. Anyone who goes around telling people "x isn't egoist" clearly doesn't understand it, since individuals are different, of course the way they choose to manifest themselves will differ.

>>50348

You can call yourself any way you want, it wont make you be one.

>including capitalism

capitalism is not some kind of system and imposes no more power on you than atmospheric pressure.

>of course the way they choose to manifest themselves will differ.

And that means that not all individuals are egoists, or individualists, at all. Saying I'm individual therefore i'll call myself egoist is wrong. Egoism has definition, and your unwillingness to comprehend it says you're just another commie who thought Stirner is cool, so he'll add some LARPing into the mix. Helping people and sacrificing yourself in their name or for their cause is not egoist, by definition. Caring about people, supporting them and acting in their interest is not egoist, by definition. You just want to feel special while being the same asswhore as befor, just with a fancier name.

>>50349

>capitalism imposes no more power on you than atmospheric pressure

barely a thing, still enough to keep 51500000000000000000 kg of mass in place…

>>50349

lmao did you actually read stirner

>“Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the schway life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc.”

– Stirner’s Critics

>“But “the egoist is someone who thinks only of himself!” — This would be someone who doesn’t know and relish all the joys that come from participation with others, i.e., from thinking of others as well, someone who lack countless pleasures — thus a poor sort. But why should this desolate loner be an egoist in comparison to richer sorts? Certainly, for a long time, we were able to get used to considering poverty a disgrace, as a crime, and the sacred socialists have clearly proven that the poor are treated like a criminals. But sacred socialists treat those who are in their eyes contemptibly poor in this way, just as much as the bourgeoisie do it to their poor.

>But why should the person who is poorer with respect to a certain interest be called more egoistic than the one who possesses that interest? Is the oyster more egoistic that the dog; is the Moor more egoistic than the German; is the poor, scorned, Jewish junkman more egoistic than the enthusiastic socialist; is the vandal who destroys artworks for which he feels nothing more egoistic than the art connoisseur who treats the same works with great love and care because he has a feeling and interest for them? And now if someone — we leave it open whether such a one can be shown to exist — doesn’t find any “human” interest in human beings, if he doesn’t know how to appreciate them as human beings, wouldn’t he be a poorer egoist with regard to this interest rather than being, as the enemies of egoism claim, a model of egoism? One who loves a human being is richer, thanks to this love, than another who doesn’t love anyone.”

– Stirner’s Critics

>>50358

>the schway life of love

kekitykek

>>50355

Well, i meant that market exists any time when 2 or more individuals deal with each other without fighting, so their agreements are the same kind of imposition of power as laws of physics, as it is just the continuation of your current being, with your power, needs and all other stuff. Other people may impose some laws onto you under the name of "capitalism", but capitalism is just how resources allocate between individual, excluding force used.

>>50358

>not against socialists, but against sacred socialists

Sure, except the whole concept of socialism is about withholding something "sacred" to an individual, be it labor, belief in god, nation, state, altruism or ant other spook. Not just not following it, but enforcing it on the others. Yes, it can be considered egoist in some way, but definitely not in a philosophical one.

>come from participation with others, i.e., from thinking of others as well

Participate with others does not mean "care" about them, as you see them only as toys to play with, and you do not need to break or lose the toys, but there is no "caring" in empathy sense. You seem to confuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism with either nihilism or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism. First one is just a statement on a human nature, so it is pointless to call yourself that way, while others are a set of beliefs, or lack thereof, as in nihilism.

>>50358

One can be an egoist, and call himself a commie, but he would never CALL himself an egoist, as being a commie is just a disguise, so breaking it that way would be stupid.

>a human being is richer, thanks to this love, than another who doesn’t love anyone

And that's where you stop being an egoist, by making moral claims about other people and their way of life. You just created another spook called "value of human life", and your belief in its importance will help you enforce it, but you already are a socialist, with a necessary for any socialist "sacred" value, ready to go annoy people.

>>50363

Oh I see the problem here. I'm not talking about psychological egoism, I'm talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism.

The reason I am in favor of a stateless, classless society is because it would directly benefit me. I'm a poorfag, I hate my job and I hate my boss more. Under capitalism I have no choice but to wage slave for him so he can get richer off my labour, my only other option being to find a new master and do the same thing or starve. Of course this is not in my self interest at all, I want to be free associate with whomever I want, and I would prefer to not be forced to work period. What I am not in favor of is Maxism-Lenninism, which seems to be what you think all socialism is. I disagree with the use of a vanguard party to create a revolution, I think it just creates a new bureaucratic ruling class and I'm still fucked. Rather I am in favor of an insurrectionist approach with no hierarchical organization.

>>50364

>And that's where you stop being an egoist, by making moral claims about other people and their way of life

Firstly, wasn't me that said that it was Stirner. Secondly he isn't basing it on morality but happiness. People who love and are loved tend to be happier than lonely people, this is a pretty easy concept to understand.

>>50374

>stateless, classless society

Then you are just stupid. Classes are a stupid concept, equality will never work and is simply wishful thinking of worthless scum that is unable to do anything, hoping to live of others. You will not get anything more from ancom then just doing stuff yourself. It does not fucking work, and never will. You are better off with marxism, it can at least allow you to murder people for their stuff.

>think all socialism is

Enforcing any collectivist claim needs a sacred value, without it that is worthless. Socialism will not benefit you if you act like a socialist.

>Firstly, wasn't me that said that it was Stirner. Secondly he isn't basing it on morality but happiness. People who love and are loved tend to be happier than lonely people, this is a pretty easy concept to understand.

Then it is just his personal observation and holds no value as an argument. He is no authority to me.

There is a reason for it to be in "individualist anarchism" section, along with libertarianism, ancap, austrian school and classical liberalism.

>>50310

>No, this is because norway is 100% capitalist

Norway isn't communist, but they are socialist. They have a significant social safety net. A large portion of their earnings from oil exports is used exclusively for their national pension fund. Norway is one of the first countries people think of when the phrase "Scandinavian socialism" is mentioned.

The point here is that a socialist system can work for a peaceful pseudo-ethnostate made up of Nordic whites. When the Scandinavian countries have been finally overrun with third world migrants, expect this to change.

>>50378

There has already been economic stagnation for a while. They became "first world countries" earlier, with freer markets and people, now with all that socialist polices they remain "cucked" and do not really develop much.

>>50317

Capitalism is not the same than what libertarian say which is a state so reduced its basically powerless

And tbh half of libtards are as insane with their fantasies as leftards are

>>50378

>but they are socialist. They have a significant social safety net.

That's not socialism, marx nor lenin would have considered a super capitalistic rich state with people riding $100k+ teslas to be socialist just because of free healthcare and college. In fact bismarck had already implemented some of that in late 19th century germany and yet marx who was still alive didn't considered that to be socialism nor did any of his followers

Read das kapital instead of talking shit

And its more likely norway will go to shit when oil runs our or loses against fusion and other tech. No amount of investment returns from that fund would be able to finance the insane expenses of that country, and most of their industry is also oil-related (ie: exploration and tools) so is not like they can rely on that instead

>>50379

Also this, sweden almost went kaput in the late 70's because they took their welfare shit too far so they had to backpedal a bit, but not enough to avoid another crash

>>50378

Also keep in mind before the oil boom norway was a really poor country, not africa-tier but post-commie eastern europe-poor, so much that most norwegians are still very frugal since they aren't used to have brouzouf to spare

This in a country that has to import almost everything else they have to live on fish and potatoes like before oil

>>50374

>I want to be free associate with whomever I want

Thats called a startup, just find someone who wants to join

>I would prefer to not be forced to work period

Would you be okay with not eating or buying anything too?

>which seems to be what you think all socialism is

It is that, what you're talking about is more like an offshot

>I think it just creates a new bureaucratic ruling class and I'm still fucked

And you're right since the soviets considered not working a crime, you'll be forced to work on some shit job like mining uranium and if you don't like it then you're mentally sick and should be rehabilitated in a gulag

>with no hierarchical organization.

Which would lose against anyone with a hierarchical organization, see the french revolution

>>50191

Literally everywhere

>>50411

if you want to actually convince anyone,

you're going to need to give some source.

>>50061

>but it's ultimately up to the end-user (or consumer) to collectively demand change or just dealwithit.jpg

Oh fuck off. Most consumers are dumb fucks, and their dumbfuckery drags the rest down.

>>50407

>Capitalism is not the same than

It is more an option to be your own state, not being under ones' jurisdiction from beginning.

>super capitalistic rich state

You are using your own definitions in your own language, of course it would not fit your agenda.

I do not really see how humongous amount of regulation and coercion to force people to do stuff is capitalism unless capitalism means laws of economics, but then these rules would apply anywhere, so i'm missing the point. Also, USSR is also considered "state capitalist" as a little lefty told me.

>>50409

I've recently had a big epiphany about talking politics online, so this will probably be my last reply don't take it personally.

>Thats called a startup, just find someone who wants to join

I'm not very knowledgeable about this, but isn't the point of a start up to get bought out by a big company? Also startups have to make a profit so you're kind of trapped in pandering to markets. I think a worker co-op would be closer to what I want, maybe mixed with straight up commune.

>Would you be okay with not eating or buying anything too?

This is the problem living under capitalism, the choice is "work or starve" which is not really a choice at all. I would like there to be other options. Also I don't have anything against labor, I work hard on stuff at home all the time that earns me no brouzouf (art, growing food, writing for pleasure etc). Work is forced labor. Being forced to do anything means it's against my self interest or, dare I say it, freedom.

>It is that, what you're talking about is more like an offshot

Now we're just arguing definitions rather than the concepts behind them. This is difficult to avoid in any argument.

>Which would lose against anyone with a hierarchical organization, see the french revolution

We've come a long way since then in terms of technology and guerrilla/urban/asymmetric warfare. Still I don't think "the revolution" is coming around the corner, but I do think it's practical to implement anarchies in small local scales at first. Especially with the coming global environmental change within the next 100 years things are going to get a lot harder for governments and a lot more chances for anarchies to spring up will present themselves.(especially in africa where there's already anti-state, anti-money, pseudo-anarchist though within a lot of traditional tribal structures, mixed with increasing resource scarcity and environmental collapse somethings got to happen. It's really hard to maintain state control when everything is a fucking dessert, no one's gonna sit back and watch you eat while they're starving) [yes I've been reading desert]

>>50421

>with straight up commune

Nothing stops you, actually, there is homesteading and stuff. Except that communes aren't effective and work without failing on a very small scale.

>the choice is "work or starve" which is not really a choice at all

Homestead, move out, work anywhere different, go to prison(free food, huh), etc. Are these not options for you?

>Work is forced labor. Being forced to do anything means it's against my self interest or, dare I say it, freedom.

<How can i be free in a world where survival requires a certain amount of labor without forcing other people to do it for me?

>Still I don't think "the revolution" is coming around the corner, but I do think it's practical to implement anarchies in small local scales at first.

Local anarchies exist everywhere the force and coercion are not involved, actually. Every time you go out with friends it works the same way as in "anarchy". It is not a leftist, or collectivist concept, as they picture it as a virtue and enforce it the same way different socialists enforce "kindness", "belief in god" or any other idea that "seems good". The revolution can only happen if there is support of people towards it, which is very unlikely, at least in the first world.

>anti-state, anti-money, pseudo-anarchist

They do not have any progress to benefit with using money, they are gatherers and cannot read. You can call ants the same this way. By the time they need a new supply of AKs brouzouf become necessary, and are used. There are also theocratic islamist states, but it is just as anti-money as christians were when they were in power. Same "greed is evil" argument and strong regulatory polices. You tell me how good they did.

>environmental collapse

Not really, with all these green polices it is highly unlikely for a "collapse" to happen. Change - yes, but not radical, its unlikely it will change anything, if any, it will be used to reinforce the government with new laws and taxes. The ozone hole is shrinking, for example.

>It's really hard to maintain state control when everything is a fucking dessert, no one's gonna sit back and watch you eat while they're starving

Oh, come on. Desert, really? Even in UK or Canada?

You know, the ancap polices and theory often look weird and different because they are designing a viable distributed system, and not wishful thinking. Ever heard of game theory? Creating an environment where Nash equilibrium would be effective is not an easy task.

You really would be better off with reading some actual theory instead of "having epiphany about talking politics".

>>50416

Yeah god forbid that individuals have to take responsibility for their choices in life.

>>50088

>Forgot the difference of Nu/pol/ and /polk/ who want to gas Trump

wew

>>50069

Subversion of politics is a hard skill

>>50070

If they want totalitarianism stick to Hitler, okay?

>>50079

>>>/cuckchan/ newfag

>>50085

And thus Animal Farm proved itself once again.

>>50099

JBP needs the gas and so do you.

Libertarian is a joke, and anyone who seek it is a joke, Ayn Rand is a kike.

>>50102

Alt Right is Post-modern as well so…

>>50103

And Libertarians cannot be oxymoron because they cannot comprehend group mentality, which is why Fascism works.

>>50106

Fascism by reds, trads, tech, fags… anarchism is a non-issue

>>50108

Individualism is useless in understanding the macro world.

>>50128

Heil five

>>50152

Post-WW2 fascism functions in a different manner. Linus Torvald's single-handed authority and lack of democracy makes it so.

>>50153

LARP as tankie is dumber, though fash-larp should get the gas as well

>>50188

Heil the dubs

>>50282

"Up" your ass.

>>50286

The working class favored either fascism or capitalism. shit happens.

>>50349

Egoist vs Ancapism ? They are compatible in a practical sense

>>50371

>clerical

Not perfect, but I'll byte

>>50407

Stateless libertarianism would be heavy ancap, which is hard to do

>>50421

> but isn't the point of a start up to get bought out by a big company

Not necessary if you have steel balls, which you do not have. So suck it up and be a fascist.

>the choice is "work or starve" which is not really a choice at all

It is if you are stranded on an island by yourself in the wild. "Arbeit macht frei" is always good wisdom if you are alone.

>traditional tribal structures

Which is fascism 101. Even the Africans know that power+trust > money

>>50099

>The term libertarian was used by the left a long time

In Europe, perhaps. That doesn't mean that the meaning of libertarianism is written in stone. Words change.

>The "libertarian" right just wants to replace state domination with domination by private cooperations.

Not quite. Libertarians generally advocate for a small government, and some libertarians (call them ancaps) want complete demolition of any central governance, and the replacement of the state with capitalism (which may include corporations).

>And history shows that they ally with fascists every time.

Damn, shit got from 0 to 100 very fast. What you said about fascism is completely, 100% wrong, and I can prove it. I will not do so, unless somebody asks me to. Suffice it to say that fascism is more than Italian Fascism or Nazism. But even if fascism meant Nazism, how do libertarians side with that? You said it yourself that

>The "libertarian" right just wants to replace state domination with domination by private cooperations.

So how can a libertarian side with a totalitarian state that controls every aspect of his life? Your are contradicting yourself.

>>50378

>The point here is that a socialist system can work for a peaceful pseudo-ethnostate made up of Nordic whites. When the Scandinavian countries have been finally overrun with third world migrants, expect this to change.

I believe so as well. Scandinavians are fucking awesome. They are generally smart, with good social skills, good work ethic, etc. They create nice, clean, secure cities. I think Scandinavians can make any system work, whether that system is socialism or capitalism. So, when people use Scandinavians as an example of a successful socialist state, they are being very dishonest IMO. Scandinavians are a homogeneous people with a lot of wealth (from capitalist activities, and the USA). Stop using it as an example of successful socialism.