No.81598
> Stalin: we can only reach a stateless, classless society through totalitarian dictatorships
< Hans-Hermann Holocaust Hoppe fanboys: we can only reach a stateless, taxless society through totalitarian dictatorships
Maybe the horseshoe theory has a point after all.
https://archive.fo/j8ZFI
No.81599
>>81598
Fine, here's your (you).
No.81600
>fascism leads to monarchism, which leads to the inception of right as it was by the the founding fathers, which leads to a slave owning stat, which leads to anarcho-capitalism
Besides the fact that this is completely retarded and baseless, it needs to be noted that this is pretty much what leftists think of ancaps and libertarians. I'm not sure if it's a case of reaffirmation by both sides or just a case of stupidity by the author of the image.
No.81604
>>81599
>>81600
The archive.fo link is an article on "Radical Capitalist", the picture is from there.
No.81611
>>81598
>< Hans-Hermann Holocaust Hoppe fanboys: we can only reach a stateless, taxless society through totalitarian dictatorships
Gonna need a citation on that one.
No.81614
>>81611
The archive.fo link is the citation
No.81617
>>81611
The meme in the OP is the citation.
No.81745
>>81614
Oh Jesus it's cancer
No.81828
>>81598
Maybe it doesn't and the Fascists are doing the exact same thing with Hoppe as they did with Nietzsche. He even addressed it specifically in a speech telling them to either get in line with Libertarianism or stop pretending to be anything more than ultra conservative Leftists and all they got out of it was "oh, so what he REALLY means by this," and continued on with their bullshit.
No.81859
>both sides of a conflict use guns, therefore they are exactly 100% identical
>both sides used air! they are the same!!
>if one side wants to eat a baby, and other to not eat it, the right thing is obviously to eat only half a baby…
horseshit theory pls go and stay go
No.81894
It makes me laugh how butthurt nazifags get over horseshoe theory. I think it's because it cuts so close to home. 'Degeneracy' is the new muh feels for sure.
No.81895
>>81598
>totalitarian dictatorships
That's what property is bud.
No.81901
>>81895
Incorrect; dictatorship necessarily implies a singular person with authority over other people. If dictatorship referred to having authority over an inanimate object, then the term would lose all meaning. Every single person in every country could be defined as a dictator in reference to some particular object. Like most phrases, if it's usable everywhere, it's useful nowhere.
No.81905
>>81901
If they are on my property I sure as fuck have authority over them. I'm not going to let them just walk in without agreeing to anything.
No.81906
>>81905
*and if they do trespass before we reach an agreement they are gonna get physically removed
No.81938
>>81905
A dictatorship on your property implies you can do anything you want to trespassers, including murder or rape. It's unlikely that any community in Ancapistan would accept that behavior, considering almost no society accepts it now.
No.81951
>>81938
What else? Are guns evil and should be banned too? If murdering people on your property is allowed then niggers will think twice before coming to steal your shit and women will also think twice before entering the house of a man they don't want to have sex with since they wouldn't be able to use the rape card, the part about rape is already pretty much common sense in every society that isn't brainwashed by feminists. If by some chance you do get a legitimate maniac that lures people to his property to do weird things to them then he will simply be ostracized from the community.
You're acting like this is something completely radical and new when it's something that's been practiced for pretty much all of history until the rise of the authoritarian-leftist state which, despite all of its strict laws still sees extremely high crime rates.
No.81961
>>81951
>If murdering people on your property is allowed then niggers will think twice before coming to steal your shit and women will also think twice before entering the house of a man they don't want to have sex with since they wouldn't be able to use the rape card, the part about rape is already pretty much common sense in every society that isn't brainwashed by feminists.
>You're acting like this is something completely radical
At least in the US, this has never been an accepted method of deterring trespassers, whether you look at the wild west or modern California. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to name any society where enforcing property boundaries by rape would be accepted (unless you count cults as their own society).
If you can't find any major world culture where that sort of behavior is acceptable, why would it suddenly become acceptable in Ancapistan?
No.81999
>>81961
Killing people on your own property has a very long precedent, see castle doctrine and English common law. The claim that you can rape anyone for being on your property is however a bold extension to this concept.
No.82000
>>81999
>Killing people on your own property has a very long precedent
Killing (for self-defense and/or trespassing) does. Murder does not.
No.82003
>>81894
"Degeneracy" is the original "muh feels," before the SJWs the "let's find something we can get offended by" was a sport exclusive to far-right authoritarians and retired religious women. That's why they are so angry about SJWs, they hate competition!
No.82008
>>82000
When all the land is privatized there's gonna be more execution for trespassing
No.82009
>>82003
Degeneracy is just whatever destroys capital. It must be purged from any organization you have domain over. If you run a degenerate organization you are gonna have some trouble.
No.82013
>>82009
Everything wears down with use.
No.82014
>>82013
>there's no difference between natural entropy and active destruction of productivity
No.82016
>>82014
If someone's idea of using his factory is smashing the machines, I'm not going to make him stop.
No.82017
>>81828
First of all, Nietzsche clearly advocates for aristocracy.
Second of all, I think HHH acctually doesnt promote a social structure, but rather says: "property rights".
What he ignores is that there are people consodering other people their property. And might makes right, if you want to follow an a priori aproach.
Only an aristocratic system suits human nature.
Ignoring the will of great men, is foolish.
No.82018
>>82003
Conservatives from all sides have raved about degeneracy. Unless you consider the Soviet bloc and modern day Eastern Europe to be "State Capitalist" and therefore Right Wing.
No.82019
>>82009
wtf i love degeneracy now
No.82020
>>82014
"Natural" is the most arbitrary adjective ever perceived.
No.82022
>>82020
The natural order is whatever happens over a long time frame. At an given moment evolution can be unclear, but after millions of years you get humans. Markets and evolution are very similar.
No.82026
>>82022
>At an given moment evolution can be unclear, but after millions of years you get humans. Markets and evolution are very similar
<social relations exist in a vacuum
Markets are means of distribution, not production. Define a free market for me. Now.
No.82034
>>82026
<social relations exist in a vacuum
Of course not
>Markets are means of distribution
Sure
>not production
Of course
Which part of that was supposed to be the takedown?
No.82037
>>82034
Because markets are not this underlying force that needs centuries to fully emerge until it encompasses everything. It emerges or it does not emerge, depending on the social relations and conditions of its existence. For example, in the Incan Empire, a market never emerged. I personally find "market" to be more of an ideological term than a empirical one: I think a better description would be "the character of interconnected relationships between producer and consumer". The term "free market" somehow implies we all start at zero as we enter the marketplace, which is obviously not true. A true free market would be something like a Greek agora, or a filesharing website on the Internet.
No.82038
>>82037
Its the selection a market produces that makes the metaphor. Structures of capital will be selected for and against without a market all the same, but it will be over a different time frame. The entire world has evolved to global capitalism at this point. The market is everywhere now.
No.82039
>>82038
>The entire world has evolved to global capitalism at this point
True, but capitalism =/= market. Capitalism ist private ownership of means of production, wage labor and generalized commodity production.
No.82040
>>82039
Of course! I'm a capitalist not a marketist after all.
No.82041
>>82039
The word "private" is very spooked in your definition of capitalism. USSR state capitalism does not fit under any normal definition of "private.
No.82042
>>82037
>in the Incan Empire, a market never emerged.
They had a barter market with foreign entities.
No.82044
>>82041
The USSR wasn't state capitalist, it was socialist. Private property can also be cooperative property, as it withholds a certain part of production from the public. However, cooperative property didn't dominate the USSR's economy, public property did.
No.82045
>>82044
>The USSR wasn't state capitalist, it was socialist
>public property did.
The "public property" was the capital of of the party not the proletariat.
No.82046
>>82044
Can all of you leftygoons just agree on whether the USSR was real socialism or not? One braindead leftard screams over the internet how it was and right in the next thread another braindead leftard screams that it wasn't, both with the utmost confidence as if they've lived there themselves.
No.82048
>>82046
I'm a capitalist, just attacking xher definition of capitalism.
No.82049
>>82045
Bullshit, the party did not have some proprietary relationship to the means of production. A bureaucrat could not decide what or how much was produced, nor was he able to keep the profits or even steer the enterprise towards profitability (at least before the Kosygin reforms which were scrapped later anyway).
>>82046
>how dare you to have different opinions
It's not my personal responsibility what opinions other people have. Marxist-Leninists always had a very consistent line on this, you'll find little disagreement amongst us there. Anarchos, Trots, Leftcoms or whatever can believe in what they like I guess, I'm not affiliated them.
>both with the utmost confidence as if they've lived there themselves.
It doesn't fucking matter whether we lived there or not, or whether or not it was a Star Trek utopia or a hellish wasteland. Neither of that changes the objective facts about whether or not the USSR was socialist, which are measurable. That's also my biggest criticism of Leftcoms, most of them just dislike the USSR or find it inconvenient to defend it in public, but at the same time they want to be good Marxists so they try to find some reason within Marxist theory and add some mental gymnastics.
No.82050
>>82049
>A bureaucrat could not decide what or how much was produced
Wrong thats exactly how it was run.
>nor was he able to keep the profits
Except they did
What the fuck do you think a "soviet" is. Thats the entire job of the soviets.
No.82051
>>82049
Soviets are literally the people that decide how much and what is produced. These soviets then get a large selection of bureaucrats they appoint that form the apparatus of the entire party. They then use their position to funnel resources to themselves.
No.82052
>>82049
Fucking tankies my god
No.82053
>>82050
>Wrong thats exactly how it was run.
Give an example on where that happened. The manager of a steel plant couldn't just switch to making pots and pans because it was more profitable (light consumer items were generally more profitable than heavy industry, yet heavy industrial plants never closed down despite unprofitability). Here is a book that debunks all of those talking points:
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-6/red-flag.pdf
>Except they did
I would not deny that the managerial strata would have access to more luxury goods, especially in revisionist times (still ridiculously low compared to five yachts in St. Tropez and three penthouses in Spain which is the standard for the top 1% in capitalism) but that did not result from appropriating the profits of an enterprise.
>What the fuck do you think a "soviet" is. Thats the entire job of the soviets.
What the fuck are you talking about? A Soviet is a council.
>>82051
You have no idea how the USSR worked. My god. Did you read that in Jacobin or what?
No.82054
>>82053
These soviets are put in power and then they do nothing? LOL. They are no more "the workers" than Obama, Bush, and Trump are normal citizens. What do you think they do once they get in power? You think they have no control over how things are run? Just because they are limited to control of their industry does not mean they don't directly profit, and control the operations of the industry.
No.82055
>>82053
> The manager of a steel plant couldn't just switch to making pots and pans
<They have to stay in the same industry so they can't be state capitalism
No.82056
>>82054
Because you are talking about two very different systems there. What you mean is a system of exchange: A capitalist appropriates a profit and then decides how much of it is to be used to accumulate more capital stock and how much to spend for himself. This is called the MCM' cycle. In socialism, we are talking about a system of distribution, which means, your labor is directly social (and not a commodity) and the reward you are cashing in is not a result of commodity exchange but payment according to quantity and quality.
For a high-level bureaucrat to divert luxury goods to himself in a different manner he would have to do so outside of legal channels, which means corruption, which, or course, did happen, especially in later years, but it's not a systemic future of the system, whereas in capitalism, this clearly is. I don't know what you mean with the Soviets, everybody could be nominated for the Soviets, not just party members.
>You think they have no control over how things are run?
When you are talking about the entire Soviet leadership or the Gosplan, you are talking about tens of thousands of people here, the USSR wasn't run by a small cabal controlling everything. Who do you think controls the economy in capitalism? How many percentage of the wealth of the entire economy do the richest fifty people in the USA own?
>>82055
That's not what I said, smartass. In state capitalism, profitability is still the regulator of the economy. You could even have competing state enterprises, happens in capitalism all the time.
No.82057
>>82056
>profitability is still the regulator of the economy.
You are confusing capital and money. The soviet system had great deals of non monetary capital. Tankies always do this where they think if its not green its not capital.
No.82058
>which means corruption
Of course it means corruption. You think because its corruption that makes it not state capitalism? If you can implement a system in name only thats a very very low standard.
No.82059
>>82056
> your labor is directly social (and not a commodity)
Again you keep mixing up green and capital. You are rewarded with capital by the soviet who control the capital in exchange for your labor. The soviet extracts more out of you than he receives should you be a productive citizen so that he may either reward the needy, or appropriate it for himself.
No.82060
>>82056
>you are talking about tens of thousands of people here
In America the capitalist system is controlled by the million+ federal employees that execute all the regulation made by congress. That does not change anything. Every heard of the FDA?
No.82061