One time I was talking about the difference between private and personal property and i get told "Thats literally an ancap argument" by a "communist" who was heavily into idpol.
Stupid things left-liberals/idpolers/radlibs/trans ancoms say thread
Other urls found in this thread:
Ancaps will deny that there's a difference because it is "arbitrary". I used to shitpost a lot on >>>/liberty/ and every thread about it always ended up with ancap imbeciles crying about "arbitrariness". I think they actually have brain problems.
Why the fuck would you group ancoms with the rest of those?
Probably screeching about muh anargiddies from someone completely disconnected from any labor or class movement, if the other complaints on Zig Forums are any indication.
I wasn;t grouping all ancoms, just the twitter trans ones
It's similar in intent to an ancap argument, but the terminology is clearer, due to the doublethink inherent to ancap ideology.
Oh, and I should add that "personal property" is somewhat unclear, so the term "personal possession" is preferred.
because ancomms (at least these days) are contributing the problem.
Since when are ancaps against private property?
Then just say trans then. Trans is inherently idpol and in my opinion icky.
DERP. Read as "ancoms."
I thought ancaps wanted everything to be private property.
Anarchism it's one of the most incorrect possible views a person could hold, and it's the leftist category most infested with idpol.
Idk. Theres quite a few idpol tankies including racist/homophobic ones. Theres SJW ones too.
Anarchism and ML(more so revisionists and MLM's than Hoxhaists/anti revisionists though) both have a lot of idpolers really if we're going to be honest, especially in the states. Leftcoms might be the least idpol but then again Muke exists so nobody is actually free of it. Not that I give a fuck honestly, while I dislike people like Bell Shakur and Anarcho moralfags I still don't really qualify for the anti idpol purity test either considering that I dabble into mra/m.g.t.o.w/blackpill/incel shit.
I think idpol is more common among anarchists than MLs simply because anarchists are more common, and as such more likely for newbies to join, so we're the first place most libs go on their journey into the far left. By the time anyone so inclined has been in the far left long enough to go to another tendency, a lot of SJW anarchists have already been filtered back out and become generic libs.
Anarchism is an easy entry point for wokies because anybody with vaguely anti-authoritarian positions can just claim to be an anarcho-whatever-ideology-here and militate their own synthesis lacking any continuity with the historical movement and as long as they're not nazis they are accepted into the big libertarian tent.
In the past that may have been true, but in our present circumstances virtually any tendency is an easy entry point due to proliferation of texts and any converts will be accepted because of "left unity". This is how the glut of college students who just read State and Revolution become the twitter tankies, how meme tendencies like DeLeonism get adherents divorced from any struggle, or how brainlets like muke become kinda big voices in the clusterfuck of left media despite having little knowledge or practical skill. This is the result of "the left" fleeing the class struggle in favor of comfy college campuses or music scenes decades ago, just updated for the internet age where anyone who can slap a red flag in their twitter bio is considered a revolutionary. If you want the wokies gone the strategy is to do proletarian stuff irl, because class action is the bane of performative politics of all stripes.
But ancaps think there's no difference like said. I think you're just dealing with an ignorant person.
Here let me fix that a bit.
I had an ML go off on me on this board about how bourgeois it would be if the workers were self-managing and how grateful I should be that a capitalist boss takes the stresses of self-management away from me.
I hate them for a reason.
The person was very well read, but they're a massive idpoler who i've only seen talk about mens behavior on dating sites, how the community of a certain website only cares about drama and how horrible and toxic that is, and how whenever I talk about how idpolers are radlibs and that theres no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism that it's "political absolutism".
Well I was trying to be charitable with "ignorant" but I guess "moron" is more appropriate.
Ironically Jim's analysis of moderators conflicts with both ancaps and ancoms
EA, Facebook, "muh terms of service" all share a common theme that private property somehow trumps personal property of the video game YOU paid for, YOUR personal account, YOUR ability to operate it.
Kinda sad someone who could speak for all anarchists gets treated like some crazy tank
No, prole, there's nothing wrong with your life except you're a "garbage person." Stop appropriating victimhood from people who are actually suffering. How dare you complain when there are people dying of cancer.
Anarchy and fascism are the same thing. A debt jubilee is ridiculous and unfeasible and a way for an authoritarian to seize power somehow. If you think any problems affect straight white men, you're promoting the "white gen o cide" narrative.
Brought to you by your favorite clique of "left" YouTubers, featuring special guest appearances by Dan Olson, H Bomberguy, and Jen of Shaun and Jen.
Nobody really falls for this semantic bullshit.
If I buy a building to start my own restaurant, it's my restaurant.
If I pay someone to work the cash register, it's still my cash register, and still my restaurant.
If I pay someone to wait tables, those are still my tables, and it's still my restaurant.
It's absolutely mindblowing how you possibly expect anyone to possibly agree with your definition of "ownership.
If you pay them less than the value their labor produces (which you must in order to profit) then you are stealing their labor value via extortion (work or starve). Your problem here is you're not questioning the basis of the system. Why/how did you have the ability to start the restaurant while other people have to work for a living? Why are you allowed to make money off other people's labor indefinitely without having to contribute any labor of your own? Why does the monetary value laid down for the property have different properties - the ability to turn into a perpetual inflow of money - than the monetary value taken home as wages by the people working there?
The fact that wage earning will never reap enough value for the wage worker to purchase their own property means that in actual fact this "free" system keeps most people stuck in the role of laborer forever. It's still a caste system like slavery, but the mechanism of bondage has been abstracted away into the economy so it's not as apparent to you.
Wrong, you pay them exactly what you agree to pay them when you give them the offer, and they accept the offer. They are compensated for their labor, entirely on the terms that they themselves agreed to ahead of time, so it is objectively not stealing.
You're already in fantasy land. Employers cheat the employees constantly IRL.
As opposed to not having work. If the employers get to set the terms (which they do) they'll set them as low as they can get away with. A new hire doesn't have any negotiating power. Their only option is to accept what they're offered or leave. This is prima facie a disingenuous argument.
By this reasoning, if you employ siege warfare and the target caves to your demands rather than starve it wasn't stealing either. Except unlike warlords capitalists rely on prior and alienated violence to set up and maintain a system where they merely have to exist and they're already in the position of having a class of people under siege.
In capitalist societies, you take them to court over that. In communist societies, your employer is the "The People's Worker's Party", which means you go to gulag.
No, it's "opposed to applying somewhere else", or "starting your own business".
Your third point makes no sense whatsoever. Like, what exactly is the comparison here? "If you can't reach an employment agreement with that restaurant down the street, he's going to lay siege to your house?"
Ah yes, court. Famous for its impartiality and the inability of money to have any impact.
You misspelled "red fascist," and there is no employer in communism.
Every prospective employer is in the position of setting the terms, and if you are in a position to be doing wage labor you don't have the means to start a business. If you are supposed to obtain the means that would require you to do wage labor for an employer so we're back to square one.
Well it's not my fault if you can't grasp analogies. Forcing people to work for an employer specifically to earn the money to buy food is the analog to siege warfare. You got the comparison lined up correctly it's just that you don't seem to get that I'm comparing the power relation involved and are stuck on the particulars.
Actually famous for its "activist judges".
Of course not. There's no "employer" in the same way there is no "state". They're both totally just the "People's Republic of Working People Workers", that's totally different. XD
Your analogies blow.
Because you're literally insane. If you don't want to work for food, then what you're arguing for is to enslave someone else to provide your needs for you. You are demanding that they work for you, and unlike the business owner, you don't even intend on compensating them for their work.
This is why everyone hates you.
Well at least you will admit that a business owner is demanding that other people work in service to them. From the rest of what you're saying you're not interested in anything but whining at people you already don't like, so why don't you go find something better to do with your time and stop shitting up this particular thread.
I think I have a winrar: "The action of testosterone on mammalian muscle tissue is a social construct".