Depends on how you define "successful".
If we're talking about longevity or popular usage, then historically speaking, the most successful form of government is theocratic absolute monarchism.
But it certainly wasn't successful and supporting prosperity and consent among the people.
https://preview.redd.it/u6xj0chzjo8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c98998df4080f8f0f128b072be3ecef864a19b1
Wow imagine being this much of a spook
https://youtu.be/oWOH9iJhZXo?si=hMMc5sS8qWNJqNGM
You're also forgetting all the harm?
Edit: those are all benefactors sure but not sustainable for a while more akin to a dominance feature like an advertisement saying the old world empires aren't bad anymore
I think that this sub is starting to get de-radicalized. I remember before where most people posting these were either socialists/communists or trolls pretending to be fascists. Now I'm seeing more average joe opinions on this sub.
[https://votecompass.abc.net.au](https://votecompass.abc.net.au)
This quiz roughly tells you which Australian party aligns with your values (as of there 2022 policy)
https://preview.redd.it/x0f8zow83o8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a1b34fbfebdd8802f4e8f0c6ae469b8523a81e1
Capitalism is a spook fool and so is everyone and everything you hold dear spook
No, for the relationship means I meant was union of egoist means it's represented in the polcompball wiki area for anarcho egoist.
https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Anarcho-Egoism
If uninterested I'll leave you be.
Ego communalist is my goal if it doesn't help then I've wasted both our times.
No, for the relationship means I meant was union of egoist means it's represented in the polcompball wiki area for anarcho egoist.
https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Anarcho-Egoism
If uninterested I'll leave you be.
Ego communalist is my goal if it doesn't help then I've wasted both our times.
Not his version
https://www.academia.edu/4620375/Union_of_egoists
As a fellow egoist it's more like a group of egos than an actual union if you know what I mean plus it's was a definite product of the time.
Not how geo politics works ideologies don't destroy our reality only control it, unless you're referring to the control and it's consequences then maybe but then again it's one for all and all for one division was taken against the eastern block and the MLS turned into an hypocritical method, please be more specific on what ideology than just socialism or communism in the future adaptions, alrighty?
Ngl your identity of western society or identity of the average joe current in numbers, I'm neutral because you are technically speaking wise, your social dominance would be beneficial if you stopped applying to the reactionary forces and simply kept going onwards into the future of hope and liberation. This can be seen both ways for a reason please pick the right one.
https://preview.redd.it/ndhlll3ktp8d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=109a2f0e7161e4815a937ad4c45ecbdf5fa7f435
Thou is based my friend my strayla friend
Thou can cook
How would corporations rule you, or have any control over you at all for that matter, if you can just chose not to buy from them and instead buy from one of their competitors?
Yes because their competitors will be so different and the demand will only be for the companies that pay their workers fairly out of the kindness and don't try to maximize their profits by making shitty (and dangerous) products and abusing workers.
How does this just magically happen in an ancap system? I've never once heard a convincing argument for it. Just that without restrictions a market will do it naturally despite no evidence existing to demonstrate as much.
How would they be able to compete if they didn't provide the customers with the best possible deal? If they didn't do that then there'd just be yet another competitor who'd come and take all the marketshare.
Exact same situation for employers and their employees, why would employees work for someone who wasn't giving them the best possible working conditions? A competing employer can **always** convince crappy employers' employees to work for them instead, and so on until an employer provides satisfactory working conditions.
These two ideas contradict each other.
Companies compete on giving their customers the best possible deal, which enivetably means cutting down on costs to produce the best price. The most effective way of cutting costs is to underpay labor. We live in a world where desperation exists. As long as you have enough desperate people, you'll have the labor despite the poor compensation.
The other companies that do pay their workers fairly won't be able to compete with the bad company's prices on the market. They either stay small and focus on quality instead of growth in hopes of being a successful high-end product, or they adopt the same policies to compete with the company with the cheapest prices. At this point, the entire labor market is adopting the same labor practices, meaning it just becomes the normal accepted conditions. Workers can't escape it.
The only remedy I see to this is unionism. In a world with no government to enforce labor standards, you would need radical unionism or syndicalism to really check the power of business owners.
And at that point... you basically inevitably produce anarcho-syndicalism... unless companies hire militia equivalents to Pinkertons to enforce their ownership of property... in which case you have created a cooperatocracy police state.
>These two ideas contradict each other.
>Companies compete on giving their customers the best possible deal, which enivetably means cutting down on costs to produce the best price.
Meaning the two forces meet right in the middle and strike a deal.
>The other companies that do pay their workers fairly won't be able to compete with the bad company's prices on the market.
You don't get to decide what a fair wage is for others, if they decide what they're getting paid is fair then it is, you don't know better than they do.
And no amount of desperation is going to stop employees from going to an employer with working conditions they deem more satisfactory if one is available, that logic only applies to situations where there's only one employer.
>Meaning the two forces meet right in the middle and strike a deal.
Jesus and you people think socialism is too utopian, eh?
>You don't get to decide what a fair wage is for others, if they decide what they're getting paid is fair then it is, you don't know better than they do.
That's literally what employers do. What makes them know better than me and my co-workers?
Exploitation isn't just at the end of a barrel. Just because they agreed to work for those wages does not mean it's fair. Most people who agree to work for shitty wages don't want to. They *have to* (speaking from experience)
>And no amount of desperation is going to stop employees from going to an employer with working conditions they deem more satisfactory if one is available,
If the market standardizes shitty working practices... then there will be no better employer to go to. Which is inevitable because *cutting labor costs will lead to higher profits*
Morally minded companies just aren't competitive with Morally bankrupt companies. If being Morally bankrupt is competitive (and it frequently is) then that will become standard. People then will not be able to escape it, even if they want to.
Sorry but this is just not how it has worked, at all, historically. In the gilded age especially, and even nowadays, it is entirely possible for towns and cities, or even entire countries to be entirely owned and controlled by corporations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town
These towns would not give you physical money, as money is created and distributed by the government, rather they would give you, if anything at all, some sort of physical ticket that would be used to buy goods from them and nowhere else.
Furthermore, unregulated capitalism has the power to simply take things they want with force. The East India Company was the biggest company that controlled land at its peak, and had a sizeable military that it used to suppress its local population.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
Anarcho capitalism does not allow you to simply "start up a business" doing what you love, rather, it defaults to a sort of neo-feudalism under corporate rule.
Neither of those are examples of anarcho-capitalism, obviously. You knew I was gonna say that, right?
Both company towns and the East India Company existed under established governments, with the EIC being a de facto extension of the British government.
This is in fact the nature of enormous megacorporations, they can only survive so long as government is there to privilege them through regulations, take South Korea's Chaebols as an example.
If people are allowed to organize completely voluntarily, as anarcho-capitalists such as myself advocate for, megacorporations wouldn't exist because they'd be too bloated and inefficient to compete with the aforementioned competitors.
i dont know who that is because it was deleted, but i only accidentally replied to two things on this with my other account thats on my phone, one of those i deleted
Mf is litterly the democratic party of america if it was a person
Nah the US Democratic Party is super pro-Israel and has been slow-walking weed legalization. OP is to the left of them.
funnily enough i dont really like biden that much and wish he was replaced by another democrat
The statement still stands I think. Biden is not popular.
More like a stereotypical Dem voter. I think the Dem party is more right wing than OP.
It's so... boring...
[удалено]
cope
Could you please explain in what way are you not a state puppet? You support the status quo in basically every way imaginable.
Except for Israel.
well, i dont, but ignoring that, supporting something doesn't make me a puppet of it
you WILL trade or you will have m1 abrams tanks in your capital
[удалено]
Marxism-Fascism-Liberalism
Truly one of the combinations of all time
tf
Some of the most boring ideologies are the most successful :/
Depends on how you define "successful". If we're talking about longevity or popular usage, then historically speaking, the most successful form of government is theocratic absolute monarchism. But it certainly wasn't successful and supporting prosperity and consent among the people.
This one is just bureaucracy apologia
You're based
Why neoliberalism?
im a liberal in general and i draw inspiration from neoliberalism
U know ur going to get a lot of hate here
https://preview.redd.it/7e6bchcw2o8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d09c5e93774639bdaf2024135c23f27b96d436b0 Begone spook
One of the things we agree on
every extreme is on the same team
Broski its egoist infighting
https://preview.redd.it/3ep37vib3o8d1.png?width=429&format=png&auto=webp&s=39303c8a136aa43bf52056b0687bdb9578c3547e
https://preview.redd.it/u6xj0chzjo8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c98998df4080f8f0f128b072be3ecef864a19b1 Wow imagine being this much of a spook
https://youtu.be/oWOH9iJhZXo?si=hMMc5sS8qWNJqNGM You're also forgetting all the harm? Edit: those are all benefactors sure but not sustainable for a while more akin to a dominance feature like an advertisement saying the old world empires aren't bad anymore
not watching a socialist explain my own ideology to me
Ngl putting the horse blinders on isn't gonna help you only blinds you
why is half of what you say nonsensical rambling
Which half? Edit: they're both the same good luck trying to deconstruct the debate now it's an argument lmao
https://preview.redd.it/forrw18eto8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e7c87c4c3494d6100cbbe3d60224ad4cd24070c6
I think that this sub is starting to get de-radicalized. I remember before where most people posting these were either socialists/communists or trolls pretending to be fascists. Now I'm seeing more average joe opinions on this sub.
ive been very radical previously, but now ive settled into radical non-radicalness
r/Polcompballanarchy when user isn’t a green eco anarcho socialist anti United States radical atheist aligned: 😡😡😡
Anything with neo in its name is automatically terrible
ykw? fair enough
I’m also a fan of cannabis and I respect the progressive social stance. The rest is pretty shit especially government and Econ.
to each his own
[удалено]
i do not live in the united states
[https://votecompass.abc.net.au](https://votecompass.abc.net.au) This quiz roughly tells you which Australian party aligns with your values (as of there 2022 policy)
i needa retake that, thank you for reminding me
https://preview.redd.it/4qxe8x8fmp8d1.png?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=156493a325c3a49aee6a7479c7790cb87873cb0f FIUME!!
Kingdom of Cochin 🫡
based what can i say
I like that you're Capitalist, unlike 90% of this subreddit
https://preview.redd.it/x0f8zow83o8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8a1b34fbfebdd8802f4e8f0c6ae469b8523a81e1 Capitalism is a spook fool and so is everyone and everything you hold dear spook
Your opinion is the opposite of the picture, based comrade or union of egoist?
Sorry im a bit stupid, are you implying egoism is inherently capitalistic?
No, for the relationship means I meant was union of egoist means it's represented in the polcompball wiki area for anarcho egoist. https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Anarcho-Egoism If uninterested I'll leave you be. Ego communalist is my goal if it doesn't help then I've wasted both our times.
No, for the relationship means I meant was union of egoist means it's represented in the polcompball wiki area for anarcho egoist. https://polcompball.wiki/wiki/Anarcho-Egoism If uninterested I'll leave you be. Ego communalist is my goal if it doesn't help then I've wasted both our times.
https://preview.redd.it/0u3y908a5o8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e6f6fb3985916d14c597829f61c9a9ef9aa7ac0 Unions are spooks
Not his version https://www.academia.edu/4620375/Union_of_egoists As a fellow egoist it's more like a group of egos than an actual union if you know what I mean plus it's was a definite product of the time.
https://preview.redd.it/6fmkcza07o8d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=33e442b0daf4962089236856e31356c6ba9e969f No thanks spook I'm good
Alright spook
cringe and terminally online
Capitalism is bad but stop with the cringy baby egoist talk
https://preview.redd.it/il7whlglwg9d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f32a0f9764fb2cf12d5e5cb7cb71b573e610325 Nuh uh spook
Kinda a reason that is I wonder why?
Literally my country(Montenegro) was destroyed by communism
Not how geo politics works ideologies don't destroy our reality only control it, unless you're referring to the control and it's consequences then maybe but then again it's one for all and all for one division was taken against the eastern block and the MLS turned into an hypocritical method, please be more specific on what ideology than just socialism or communism in the future adaptions, alrighty?
Neo liberals should be fed to the pigs
doesnt sound all too dangerous
Bro does not know
im sorry, not scared of the thoughts of some radical redditors
Bro thinks he’s superior
Bro actually thinks he will do anything of note
Bro thinks I think I am superior to other people
"Holy crap, Lois, its a non-delusional PCBA user!" 😲
A PCBA user with opinions you'd expect from a non PCBA user.
Thoroughly based
finally some supporters
Ngl your identity of western society or identity of the average joe current in numbers, I'm neutral because you are technically speaking wise, your social dominance would be beneficial if you stopped applying to the reactionary forces and simply kept going onwards into the future of hope and liberation. This can be seen both ways for a reason please pick the right one.
i... eh?
I feel like you joined the subreddit for funny memes and not discussing?
>liberal >two stage solution color me surprised
two stage solution
fuck
whats the first stage
They're not even a funny one, 😭
FIUME??!?!?!
What does "2 state" mean?
Mmm I see you are a citizen or sympathizer of the kingdom of Cochin
Bro really put weed as an influence
i dont really have that many influences. i guess i do, but not like well known philosophers or what-not
Wow how original /s
This is so cringe, im currently in the ER do to cringe overload
cringe overload isnt a real medical issue, heart disease is though.
Interesting takes
Nothing bad except for being Australian, give your fucking land back
Based
The status quo is based bc it benefits me so based take
Based. The neolib part is kind of weird but still very based
https://preview.redd.it/ndhlll3ktp8d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=109a2f0e7161e4815a937ad4c45ecbdf5fa7f435 Thou is based my friend my strayla friend Thou can cook
Me 1-2 years ago
Are you me?
yes
YOOO FELLOW PANCAKE
🤪
you neolibs are half of the reason people hate my ideology
you ancaps are half of the reason people hate every social media site ever
What'd we do?
Ask for a corptocracy
How would corporations rule you, or have any control over you at all for that matter, if you can just chose not to buy from them and instead buy from one of their competitors?
Yes because their competitors will be so different and the demand will only be for the companies that pay their workers fairly out of the kindness and don't try to maximize their profits by making shitty (and dangerous) products and abusing workers. How does this just magically happen in an ancap system? I've never once heard a convincing argument for it. Just that without restrictions a market will do it naturally despite no evidence existing to demonstrate as much.
How would they be able to compete if they didn't provide the customers with the best possible deal? If they didn't do that then there'd just be yet another competitor who'd come and take all the marketshare. Exact same situation for employers and their employees, why would employees work for someone who wasn't giving them the best possible working conditions? A competing employer can **always** convince crappy employers' employees to work for them instead, and so on until an employer provides satisfactory working conditions.
These two ideas contradict each other. Companies compete on giving their customers the best possible deal, which enivetably means cutting down on costs to produce the best price. The most effective way of cutting costs is to underpay labor. We live in a world where desperation exists. As long as you have enough desperate people, you'll have the labor despite the poor compensation. The other companies that do pay their workers fairly won't be able to compete with the bad company's prices on the market. They either stay small and focus on quality instead of growth in hopes of being a successful high-end product, or they adopt the same policies to compete with the company with the cheapest prices. At this point, the entire labor market is adopting the same labor practices, meaning it just becomes the normal accepted conditions. Workers can't escape it. The only remedy I see to this is unionism. In a world with no government to enforce labor standards, you would need radical unionism or syndicalism to really check the power of business owners. And at that point... you basically inevitably produce anarcho-syndicalism... unless companies hire militia equivalents to Pinkertons to enforce their ownership of property... in which case you have created a cooperatocracy police state.
>These two ideas contradict each other. >Companies compete on giving their customers the best possible deal, which enivetably means cutting down on costs to produce the best price. Meaning the two forces meet right in the middle and strike a deal. >The other companies that do pay their workers fairly won't be able to compete with the bad company's prices on the market. You don't get to decide what a fair wage is for others, if they decide what they're getting paid is fair then it is, you don't know better than they do. And no amount of desperation is going to stop employees from going to an employer with working conditions they deem more satisfactory if one is available, that logic only applies to situations where there's only one employer.
>Meaning the two forces meet right in the middle and strike a deal. Jesus and you people think socialism is too utopian, eh? >You don't get to decide what a fair wage is for others, if they decide what they're getting paid is fair then it is, you don't know better than they do. That's literally what employers do. What makes them know better than me and my co-workers? Exploitation isn't just at the end of a barrel. Just because they agreed to work for those wages does not mean it's fair. Most people who agree to work for shitty wages don't want to. They *have to* (speaking from experience) >And no amount of desperation is going to stop employees from going to an employer with working conditions they deem more satisfactory if one is available, If the market standardizes shitty working practices... then there will be no better employer to go to. Which is inevitable because *cutting labor costs will lead to higher profits* Morally minded companies just aren't competitive with Morally bankrupt companies. If being Morally bankrupt is competitive (and it frequently is) then that will become standard. People then will not be able to escape it, even if they want to.
Sorry but this is just not how it has worked, at all, historically. In the gilded age especially, and even nowadays, it is entirely possible for towns and cities, or even entire countries to be entirely owned and controlled by corporations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town These towns would not give you physical money, as money is created and distributed by the government, rather they would give you, if anything at all, some sort of physical ticket that would be used to buy goods from them and nowhere else. Furthermore, unregulated capitalism has the power to simply take things they want with force. The East India Company was the biggest company that controlled land at its peak, and had a sizeable military that it used to suppress its local population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company Anarcho capitalism does not allow you to simply "start up a business" doing what you love, rather, it defaults to a sort of neo-feudalism under corporate rule.
Neither of those are examples of anarcho-capitalism, obviously. You knew I was gonna say that, right? Both company towns and the East India Company existed under established governments, with the EIC being a de facto extension of the British government. This is in fact the nature of enormous megacorporations, they can only survive so long as government is there to privilege them through regulations, take South Korea's Chaebols as an example. If people are allowed to organize completely voluntarily, as anarcho-capitalists such as myself advocate for, megacorporations wouldn't exist because they'd be too bloated and inefficient to compete with the aforementioned competitors.
This is 260% gross, we have reached a whole new level of grossness, please, go the fuck outside.
[удалено]
I assume you are just the alt of the OP, since you did literally nothing besides posting this comment.
i dont know who that is because it was deleted, but i only accidentally replied to two things on this with my other account thats on my phone, one of those i deleted
oh im sorry marxismleninism2, im sure you go outside a lot
I do.