Kropotkin

here:
CIA niggers have lied to you for decades

Because 16 year old leftist edgelords never know if their supposed to be anarchist or communist, so they think being anarcho-communist is something that will work. I thought it was the real deal, until I read him and realized it's self contradictory utopian trash that ignores the real problems of societal stability. Leftists would be better off with actual writers like Keynes or Chomsky

Not sure where to ask
Outside of the ancap stuff I've read and liked, other anarchist related things I've read and liked are Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Henry David Thoreau, Samuel Edward Konkin III, and Kevin Carson (especially his Austrian influence)
I like the idea of a mix of anarcho-capitalism, agorism, and some mutualism
Or people freely deciding their own system without unnecessary violence and stuff
Where do I go from here reading wise?

Go back to the beginning, because you went down the dead end cul de sac with the gate leading right back to liberal capitalism and statism.

>americans jack off to this guy because they've been pretty thoroughly conditioned to fear the soviet union
Humans in general fear starvation.

No serious analysis can be done by comparing different "isms." Once you have your God, pick which policies serve it, and vote for whoever has the best record. Ism theory is a dead end

What uselessism

Political science is apparently a neighborhood lol :3

Have you read Hayek yet, butterfly?

>Ism theory is a dead end
based pragmatist

I've been thinking about this for a considerably long period of time.

I think that seeing as any sort of exchange is deterministic, what really separates a positive-sum one-person game, from a positive-sum general two person game? I am considering this: the idea of society under communism is actually a general two person game (with 3 players, where player 3 is the dummy player who does not interrupt the game, or interact, and whose utility sums up to the net benefit of the two). Essentially this makes it possible for the two-person game, which is always zero-sum under game theory, to be a positive net utility. This is what socialism aims to be.

John Von Neumann, while being a very good scientist, was not the best sociologist, so the issue here is that in his Theory of Games book (which I am reading right now) he conflates Communism with Socialism constantly. The idea here is that either one aims to essentially have the state make everything deterministic. You could think of the state as assigning imputations to the whole of what was originally, or naturally, an n-person game, where n is the number of civilians, yet because the assigned imputations are sufficiently above the upper bound of 'excess' they are called 'detached' and essentially make the game deterministic.

All this means, is that communism or socialism essentially strive for a positive competition. And this competition would be the competition between two different 'sides' of interest. And this is also where I disagree with John Von Neumann, because I think that it's not a one-person game because there will always be two different antagonizing interests in society, even with the intervention of state: the producers and the consumers. I think that the general way communism works is that it wants to bring the utility gained of the producers as close as they possibly can to zero, which is the function of the state under socialism, however eventually, because of the nature of people, and even just accounting really, some of the productive gains will head back to the producer. And because of this reason, I think Neumann is wrong about communism, it is not a one-person game, it is a positive-sum general 2 person game. Still deterministic, of course, but a 2 person game nonetheless, whose aim is to reduce, but not bring below zero, the producers gain from production. :3

No one need read neoclassical liberalism
>Let’s try it again. It’ll be different this time

He had a particularly initiative, clear, and detailed sense and reasoning about anarchism.

Attached: ukraine.png (500x300, 61K)

This. My family lived through those times and the person who made that post should shut up because he hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about.

He gave an in-depth description of how anarchism could work, proceeded to spread his ideas throughout Europe and, soon after, his ideas were actually put into place in Revolutionary Catalonia (and other parts of Spain).
Pretty based if you ask me.

Yeah, but the thing is that the only good/new thing he wrote down was his 'we must first secure the bread' meme.

He was the sanest of the anarchists, and his system would probably be workable in a society that had cohesiveness and shared values. Never in today's multi-culti world, though.

I think about your when I masturbate :3

You'd have to be a Leftist to consider basic Reason against Darwino-Malthusian nightmares as revolutionary.

>Egoist-syndicalist
kys yourself

Isn't he the dwarf from Narnia?

>Insinuating different cultures living within the same society can't have certain values essential to functioning within a certain society in common with each other.

Case in point: nearly every culture glorifies wage slaving to one degree or another these days due to French and Britbonger imperialism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Sixteen
what went wrong

because he believed that alturism was natural and not an expression of self-interest and having a fairly positive view of human nature underpins leftwing political ideologies

the working class are the drags of society and have rightfully been supressed since ancient times. it's the way the cookie crumbles.