Does it make more sense for an ancom to support left unity or bottom unity?

Does it make more sense for an ancom to support left unity or bottom unity?

Attached: download.jpg (268x188, 12.71K)

Depends on whether you plan for the long term or the short term.

Under left unity, the long term goal of anarcho-communism is literally the same as socialism - stateless communism. The disagreement comes from the short term goals of how to get there. Bottom unity, on the other hand, is incoherent in the long term. It only makes sense in the short term because they agree on abolishing the state as soon as possible.

Or in other words, it's a maturity question.

The USSR and China had/have been communist for 70 years. The USSR collapsed and China (and any other ML state) are nowhere near the end goal. You can hardly consider that "short-term".

Neither the USSR nor China achieved a classless/stateless society. Do you even know what communism is?

I said quite the opposite. The have never reached the end goal.

Anarcho-Primitivism: Embraces The State and bears the burden of guerrila warfare and asymmetrical warefare to destroy The Enemy in order to restore The State via powerful city-states that eventually Confederate into a Pure Nation-State at the height of Militarism and Hyper-Nationalism.
Know your enemy as I know you Zig Forums. I wish to shed your blood when The Glorious Revolution comes; not as a reactionary, but as a grounded and level enemy that will fight you to the death!
May The Bloodbath be worthy of our convictions!(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Attached: The Flute Tune.mp4 (640x360, 11.55M)

This is the kind of shitposting I love.

It took 70 years just to give the voting franchise to all white men in US.

Mostly it would make sense for ancoms to become Marxist because that is at least a non-meme school of thought with a serious scientific grounding AND examples of it functioning in practice.
But to answer the question, obviously left unity is at least possible to some extent. Unity between anti-capitalists and extreme pro-capitalists is just plain absurd.

Classic Ancoms were well-read and directly involved in the labor movement so they would, of course, prefer left unity.

Modern Ancoms however, tend to be quasi-lumpen, slack-jawed middle class college kids who have never worked a day in their life, consider the punk subculture to be praxis, and are incapable of reading. So they would probably prefer to associate with a similar caliber of human shit (that is, Ancaps).


Attached: discordowo-1.gif (640x652, 341.58K)

Ancoms don't exist, that's an ancap word.

Empires have stood for centuries, some civilizations for thousands. Previous economic and production norms took ages, literal ages, to transform into new ones. 70 years is long term only to he who sees til' the end of his life.

The European and Asian landscapes has changed a lot in these last 70 years my friend.
Define empire
Define Civilization, and don't use polfag terminology to do it.
Even if you are able to succesfully defined it, you are not less wrong, ever played CK2, Victoria 2 or EU3/EU4? The European landscaped changed a lot during the Dark Ages and the Renaissance.
If someone tries to convince you otherwise, he is probably a polfag.

Global politics are constantly changing kid.

The absolute state of this board.

bottom unity by far.
A lot (although not all) of loberts have simalar values to us and just have different ideas about whats feasible and what will descend into somali chaos. Many have a proto class-consciousness (muh elites muh soros muh crony capitalism) and all are progun.

I also think it will be bottom unity, but I think it's the less coherent alliance.
Ancaps are proguns for them, antiguns for whomever is considered 'statist', including ancoms.
If anarchists want to abondon the liberation of the proletariat over idealist notions of no state then so be it. It only will show the class character of ancoms to Marxists.

It depends on whether he prefers to end up with top left or top right.

Ancaps and lolbetarians would side with fascists a million times before putting people before property, they need their thugs. I might be able of pragmatically compromising with them on some rare occasion, perhaps to convert them, but never to side with them.
After all, you can't do away with unjustified hierarchies if you allow capitalism. Corporate domination has proven itself to be more sinister and unrepresentative than even the worst auth-left straw-men. The latter at least is a coherent and singular force to be held to account, rather than the vague, distributed, corporate-talk, insurance-bureaucratic, "voluntary contract", market-psychologized, commodified-human-life, advertiser-friendly indentured-servitude crypto-feudalism offered by the former.

Attached: 1480570533226.png (720x540, 221.29K)

Class unity

Ancap here. I think better of Marxists, who base their conclusions on a sound theory (dialectical materialism, labor theory of value) even though it is completely flawed.
Anarkiddies' "theories" boil down to
I would much rather side with them to fight US military imperialism than I would side with with anarkiddies for criminal justice reform.

this post smells like straw

I wouldn't expect nothing more from an ancrap

Obviously left unity. Anarchists and "an"caps have virtually nothing in common.

Being an anarchist doesn't make sense, so I don't know what you're worrying about.

Attached: aae51d7abb5c9d82d057d9315b92d9d7cd07c2ed330e7e4802a453a03fad7b3c.png (780x1200, 760.06K)

It's not. Leftarchists would be marxists, be they aren't because they're too retarded.

I'm self employed. Where do I fit the leftypol world? I work alone because nobody even tries to find work in the wood floor trade because it's not pushing buttons. I set my own price each job and my labor is always at risk of being stolen by a customer that refuses to pay. In lovely liberal Oregon, a judge dismissed my lien for $2500 against such a customer. Is this what I can expect from your (liberal marxist whatever the fuck you call it these days) society?

The fact that you work alone and free-lance, but that you have a valuable skill, means that you will probably end up being given a good gig by the worker's state (but it won't be freelance, because why would it be?)

So where do people consider the line between market socialists and ancaps to be? I came to be an ancap from minarchism, and then reading Friedman on how you'd run a decentralized legal system. My only real issue with socialists is just that a planned economy seems irresponsible to try to implement until somebody can demo software that convincingly solves economic calculation.

But when somebody calls themselves an ancap while vehemently opposing intellectual property and limited liability, and figures worker-run businesses are going to win out in a free market long-term because of the workers having more incentive than under the wage labor model - what's the issue? Frankly I get the impression that a lot of people on both sides just wound up locked into tribalistic thinking and consider the others to be rivals who should be dismissed without thought. I think, unless I've tremendously fucked up my logic somewhere, that I take "You can keep what you make" and "You can sell your labor or property" as axiomatic and build from there.

that's still ancap. Mutualism/Georgism is questioning property rights in land, which is kind of a socialist position. I would say Mutualism is in between capitalism and socialism, and georgism is still capitalist. When we start getting into the crap about abolishing private property, that means you're in socialist territory.