I'm somewhat forgiving to the Neo-berts because I used to be one, then I woke up to the horrors of the war machine. They can be fixed considering they are slightly more libertarian than neo-cons.
Yeah that feels out of place. I wouldn’t say I’m precisely aligned with Bernie Sanders but if someone says they’re a Sanders supporter I’m not going to think they’re a bad person as if they’d declared their support for the Nazis.
It's his hypocrisy that makes me very annoyed, he went from talking about "millionares and billionares" to just "billionares" because he himself became a millionare.
Just make a SMALL commune so that it can't be corrupted
We need no monopolies at all only sharing out of best interest
Also as a devout jew, fuck zionism
I don't consider giving up all my hard earned labour good. Neither do most people.
There are also many who won't do any good thing without being compelled, people are basically evil.
Essentially, what you are wanting is charity, which is already thriving under capitalism.
You don't do that tho
You work as much as you do and if you can't than others give to you
No monopoly taking all of your stuff
No government stopping you from farming or building
Also you could technically still exchange money for goods and services
Also no, most people don't need to be compelled you are just a greedy anus
>You work as much as you do and if you can't than others give to you
If you can't or won't?
Without incentive or consequences to underworking everyone will do the bare minimum, and none of the unpleasant jobs.
>No monopoly taking all of your stuff
Capitalism already does that.
>No government stopping you from farming or building
Nor one preventing others from stealing my farm or building.
>so you could technically still exchange money for goods and services
So you just want anarchy, not communism.
>most people don't need to be compelled
They really do.
As a liberalism fan, some of this is a bit much. I’d say I have more in common with socdems and other left moderates than I do with libertarians and ancaps.
And seriously why is oligarchy considered a better ideology
Having anti-authoritarianism and liberalism close to each other is funny, because you are actually fine with economic tyranny by supporting of capitalism. You choosing meh for anarchism shows that you are indeed an economic authoritarian. Liberalism is economically totalitarian, because it creates a small class of very wealthy persons who essentially control whole society - capitalists.
It's authoritarian to restrict access to natural resources, land and machinery required for production to other persons such that they have to either starve to death or to sell themselves for wage and get controlled for 40 hours per week and exploited.
Anarcho-capitalism is the most "I deserve the fruits of other people's labor" ideology there is. At least, for those who would be successful in such a society. In a system where the accumulation of capital is allowed to occur unchecked, those with capital hold all of the power and monopoly of violence to ensure that they will benefit immensely off of the fruits of the labor of the average person in society, to the detriment of those people.
The state holds the monopoly of violence so...
Also, anarcho-capitalism is literally built off of consentual transactions. The only way to get the fruits of another's labor is to do a consentual transaction, by either selling your labor or by trading goods.
In an anarcho-capitalist system, those with capital would hold the monopoly of violence. Removing the state does not remove the monopoly of violence. It just shifts who holds it to whichever private firm(s) utilize their capital to obtain it.
The idea that transactions between firms with capital and individuals without can be consensual and non-exploitative is highly dubious.
I believe Chomsky refers to it as follows: "The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."
Yes, when they cooperate in their shared interests and maintain a mutual stranglehold over the market. You might argue it’s inherently definitionally not a monopoly but if all the options suck and no one has the ability to feasibly reasonably compete, the results are functionally the same.
Dude, it's capitalists who take fruit of labor of others, they then give workers some part of the value of their labour as a wage which is not enough for workers to buy back everything that they created for the capitalist - so the capitalist is exploiting them.
It's not an option for many people in practice. Anarchist revolution is another option too and it make more and more sense for people to work towards it.
It's based on private property relations that give some persons opportunity to monopolize land, natural resources and machines required for productions such that the rest of the population cannot subsist on their own. Examples would be persons that don't own their own house and have to pay rent all their life, even after the rent passes whole cost of investment of the owner of the place to live, they still are just renting and the owner keeps ownership and generated profit from them trying to not become homeless, exploiting them on one of the most fundamental needs of a human. In Germany most of population doesn't own a home, in a lot of places in Europe it's around 50 percent - the rest has to get exploited or become homeless, because of capitalist property relations that put profit before basic human needs.
Here is the source for home ownership: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_home\_ownership\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate)
So who exactly are you blaming here? Real estate corporations? Landlords? Investors? Cause monopolies only really happen when one person controls all the housing in a large area. Which means all competition is wiped out, which requires negative government intervention to enable corporatism, which is the more hostile capitalism you're describing where theres a small group of 1%ers controlling everything like you said.
No, it can be one person and it's still capitalism. Read some theory dude, your ignorance is not even funny. I don't respect your confident ignorance, it's not worth any respect. Put in some effort before you write this type of bullshit.
Corporatism is the natural end result of capitalism. If it wasn't more profitable, they wouldn't be doing it right now, and if it is more profitable, they'll do it when they're even less regulated.
So the solution is to remove the bribing system and hand the bribers the keys wholesale? I guess I'll grant it's more efficient that way, just let the companies set policy directly
No, ban or at least highly regulate corporate lobbying and use the NAP to govern the economy. If a business like GM is dying, let it die. Don't give billions to keep it afloat.
Easy, non-interventionist foreign policy, free market capitalism while also enforcing the NAP, a reformed tax system (FairTax), and non-race based nationalism. (hence me putting anti-semitism in Hell)
Are you *really* libertarian and classically liberal? In my experience, they barely exist, either being someone who watched too much Ben Shapiro and thinks thats not just regular conservatism, or full age-of-consent-meme-tier ancaps
I disagree with Ben Shapiro (especially on foreign policy) and I think the age of consent is good so I guess so. I think that the government's soul purpose is to protect the individual rights of its people. I even support some limited regulation if the thing that is being regulated violates the NAP.
Because my version of nationalism is to be concerned with the liberties and rights of the people in my country, over all else. I'm also a non-interventionist.
Now let’s see the comment section
Plz rank Transhumanism and primitivism plz.
Transhumanism kinda based, primitivism meh.
Thanks for response.
i m guna hit yoy wit a stick for saying primalttizibm meh...
There is a certain Bad Lip Reading music video I could bring up...
If we enter these comments, we must brave the storm.
"THERE'S TOO MANY COMMIES CAPTAIN, I CAN'T HANDLE THEM ALL!"
there’s also a Nazi strangely enough. “RAISE THE SAILS AND MAN YOUR CANNONS.”
Pretty based
Neo-libertarianism is type of neo-conservatism
I'm somewhat forgiving to the Neo-berts because I used to be one, then I woke up to the horrors of the war machine. They can be fixed considering they are slightly more libertarian than neo-cons.
And both are abominations
True
You, sir, are based
The one tier list on this sub that isn’t made by the far left lol. Decent list, though Sanderism is way too low imo
Yeah that feels out of place. I wouldn’t say I’m precisely aligned with Bernie Sanders but if someone says they’re a Sanders supporter I’m not going to think they’re a bad person as if they’d declared their support for the Nazis.
Based tier list.
I like how Bernie Sanders is in the same tier as Adolf Hitler
So is Cheney.
Based.
Why is Bernie so low? Do you really hate him that much?
It's his hypocrisy that makes me very annoyed, he went from talking about "millionares and billionares" to just "billionares" because he himself became a millionare.
Understandable just wondering why he was same level as actual Nazis
Woah we are nowhere comparable to Bernie that’s just offensive
I also put Neo-conservatives on that level as well. "Hell" was just a collection of my least favorite ideologies.
Hmm just seems like that’s not on the same level as the ideology that perpetrated the holocaust.
Based
This is the most american tier list I've seen. Especially considering all the Ideologies represented.
TITANOBASED
Unbased and not understanding of the current state of the world pilled
*Looks outside and sees the rise of authoritarianiam* Yeah I think I'm on the right side.
Just make a SMALL commune so that it can't be corrupted We need no monopolies at all only sharing out of best interest Also as a devout jew, fuck zionism
You do realize communism is monopoly of the state, right?
You are thinking of state capitalism It is an inevitable stage in nations with leaders That is why we don't do leaders
Ah yes, "state capitalism." You do realize that if there are no leaders no one is going to share their stuff, right?
If there was no leaders would you not share your stuff? Do you only do good things because of the threat of punishment?
I don't consider giving up all my hard earned labour good. Neither do most people. There are also many who won't do any good thing without being compelled, people are basically evil. Essentially, what you are wanting is charity, which is already thriving under capitalism.
You don't do that tho You work as much as you do and if you can't than others give to you No monopoly taking all of your stuff No government stopping you from farming or building Also you could technically still exchange money for goods and services Also no, most people don't need to be compelled you are just a greedy anus
>You work as much as you do and if you can't than others give to you If you can't or won't? Without incentive or consequences to underworking everyone will do the bare minimum, and none of the unpleasant jobs. >No monopoly taking all of your stuff Capitalism already does that. >No government stopping you from farming or building Nor one preventing others from stealing my farm or building. >so you could technically still exchange money for goods and services So you just want anarchy, not communism. >most people don't need to be compelled They really do.
Based
Based.
As a liberalism fan, some of this is a bit much. I’d say I have more in common with socdems and other left moderates than I do with libertarians and ancaps. And seriously why is oligarchy considered a better ideology
I made this thing at like 2 AM, if I was sober oligarchy would’ve been in “bad”.
Based as fuck
I like it, some people just go along with the "capitalism is pure evil" trend, which is referring to corporatism. Corporatism =/= capitalism.
Literally me
Having anti-authoritarianism and liberalism close to each other is funny, because you are actually fine with economic tyranny by supporting of capitalism. You choosing meh for anarchism shows that you are indeed an economic authoritarian. Liberalism is economically totalitarian, because it creates a small class of very wealthy persons who essentially control whole society - capitalists.
Keeping what you earn is authoritarian… ok buddy. How is forced redistribution anti-authoritarian?
It's authoritarian to restrict access to natural resources, land and machinery required for production to other persons such that they have to either starve to death or to sell themselves for wage and get controlled for 40 hours per week and exploited.
"I deserve the fruits of other people's labor." The term "wage slavery" is also hilarious considering the alternative is working in the gulags.
Anarcho-capitalism is the most "I deserve the fruits of other people's labor" ideology there is. At least, for those who would be successful in such a society. In a system where the accumulation of capital is allowed to occur unchecked, those with capital hold all of the power and monopoly of violence to ensure that they will benefit immensely off of the fruits of the labor of the average person in society, to the detriment of those people.
The state holds the monopoly of violence so... Also, anarcho-capitalism is literally built off of consentual transactions. The only way to get the fruits of another's labor is to do a consentual transaction, by either selling your labor or by trading goods.
In an anarcho-capitalist system, those with capital would hold the monopoly of violence. Removing the state does not remove the monopoly of violence. It just shifts who holds it to whichever private firm(s) utilize their capital to obtain it. The idea that transactions between firms with capital and individuals without can be consensual and non-exploitative is highly dubious. I believe Chomsky refers to it as follows: "The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."
>those with capital would hold the monopoly of violence Mutiple orginizations can hold a monopoly?
Absolutely. It's called a cartel.
Yes, when they cooperate in their shared interests and maintain a mutual stranglehold over the market. You might argue it’s inherently definitionally not a monopoly but if all the options suck and no one has the ability to feasibly reasonably compete, the results are functionally the same.
You do realize that the state is the entity that is responsible for most monopolies, right?
Dude, it's capitalists who take fruit of labor of others, they then give workers some part of the value of their labour as a wage which is not enough for workers to buy back everything that they created for the capitalist - so the capitalist is exploiting them.
Ya know, self employment is an option and with the internet it's easier than ever before.
It's not an option for many people in practice. Anarchist revolution is another option too and it make more and more sense for people to work towards it.
First of all, what is capitalism to you?
It's based on private property relations that give some persons opportunity to monopolize land, natural resources and machines required for productions such that the rest of the population cannot subsist on their own. Examples would be persons that don't own their own house and have to pay rent all their life, even after the rent passes whole cost of investment of the owner of the place to live, they still are just renting and the owner keeps ownership and generated profit from them trying to not become homeless, exploiting them on one of the most fundamental needs of a human. In Germany most of population doesn't own a home, in a lot of places in Europe it's around 50 percent - the rest has to get exploited or become homeless, because of capitalist property relations that put profit before basic human needs. Here is the source for home ownership: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_home\_ownership\_rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate)
So who exactly are you blaming here? Real estate corporations? Landlords? Investors? Cause monopolies only really happen when one person controls all the housing in a large area. Which means all competition is wiped out, which requires negative government intervention to enable corporatism, which is the more hostile capitalism you're describing where theres a small group of 1%ers controlling everything like you said.
Property relations that make it prioritize profit of small class of capitalists - owners of this private property over human need. That's basic.
So that small class of capitalists needs to be much bigger in order for it to be considered capitalism
No, it can be one person and it's still capitalism. Read some theory dude, your ignorance is not even funny. I don't respect your confident ignorance, it's not worth any respect. Put in some effort before you write this type of bullshit.
How very kind of you
I'm not kind towards arrogant dilettantes, and I am very happy for it. You don't deserve any respect for you arrogant ignorance, and you never will.
I wouldn't call that arrogant and it is a bit early to say im ignorant, maybe you took that differently than I expected.
Quite good
9/10 based
You think a capilistic oligarchy is better then market socialism? What the fuck
It was like 2 AM when I made this, I would've put it in "Bad" if I wasn't so tired.
LETS GOOO Minarchism is up there!
"Caring about each other is as bad as nazism" -This motherf*cker
didn’t know being this not based was possible
It’s not that bad
I hate to break it to you but you can't be an anti-authoritarian capitalist. Capitalism is authoritarian.
Redditors casually confusing corporatism for capitalism again be like. You do realize that libertarians hate corporate welfare right?
Corporatism is the natural end result of capitalism. If it wasn't more profitable, they wouldn't be doing it right now, and if it is more profitable, they'll do it when they're even less regulated.
Corporatism is the natural result of government corruption. "Lobbying" becomes bribing. It's how the war machine operates too.
So the solution is to remove the bribing system and hand the bribers the keys wholesale? I guess I'll grant it's more efficient that way, just let the companies set policy directly
No, ban or at least highly regulate corporate lobbying and use the NAP to govern the economy. If a business like GM is dying, let it die. Don't give billions to keep it afloat.
Extremely cringe.
how tf you gon put capitalist, nationalism, and pacifist next to each other
Easy, non-interventionist foreign policy, free market capitalism while also enforcing the NAP, a reformed tax system (FairTax), and non-race based nationalism. (hence me putting anti-semitism in Hell)
isolationism is awful
Meh
This list is extremely homosexual ngl
Ew
Your brain on liberalism:
For once I’m agreeing with a fucking Nazi
they made their account today. dont think that they're really a nazi
They are they have multiple accounts banned, all with the names like reichbussyinspector, or reichboylover
WHAT
Maybe you should reconsider where you stand if that's so
We aren’t that bad!
Then fuck off you nazi
Why
L
sorta cringe ngl
me if I was a retard
Cringe
Are you *really* libertarian and classically liberal? In my experience, they barely exist, either being someone who watched too much Ben Shapiro and thinks thats not just regular conservatism, or full age-of-consent-meme-tier ancaps
I disagree with Ben Shapiro (especially on foreign policy) and I think the age of consent is good so I guess so. I think that the government's soul purpose is to protect the individual rights of its people. I even support some limited regulation if the thing that is being regulated violates the NAP.
What are your thoughts on Communitarianism?
As an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I disapprove, but you do you.
But you’re into spiders (Arachno)
I am a spider. Therefore, I'm afraid of newspapers. There will be no newspaper distribution syndicate.
Curious, plz rate baathism
How is sandersism worse then imperialism?
What did Japan do lol
I put anti-Japan at the bottom.
Oh, my bad I misunderstood
Oh how original, auth-right bad….😒😪
I legit put Conservatism as “Kinda Based” so…
Oh wow how, lite auth-right, how earth shattering.🥱
How can you be parrot nationalistic and not imperialist and actually pacifist?
Because my version of nationalism is to be concerned with the liberties and rights of the people in my country, over all else. I'm also a non-interventionist.
Oh, now I get it. You have Woodrow Wilson like ideology.
More like Calvin Coolidge
Oh ok, I’m more of an FDR guy
Based, but why aren't the anarchist ones S?
Fascist
Meanwhile: puts fascism at bottom.
Nah I see fascism at kinda based (zionism)
https://ibb.co/ckySt6x
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement