This is the metamodern age. An age when people have ideologies that vary as numbers do on a phonebook. The results usually ending up ironic. Some more than others. And, this is a thread dedicated those really ironic ones that have gained some following. Examples from the left and right being national bolshevism, anarcho capitalism, posadism, egoism, etc… They're few of many. Quite quaintly, people actually take these silly ideas seriously. Which can often be surreal to the point of maddening. I've noticed this. Meme ideologies have gotten a large amount of scourn. For instance, nazbols are heavily scrutinised on leftypol as they have gained a decent presence there. Observations like these are really great for tactics.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): DB7349F95CC93491486BE45E8F1B8B04-3059702.png (2.9 MB, 2040x1452, 1495763195523.png)
File (): 84962FBB1F0FE2DB6831B22ED1D34BC3-1039483.png (1.0 MB, 1700x1100, Private Death Squads.png)
File (): 532AFE8FE4DF5F30F41694CB7D94EBE3-82275.jpg (80.3 KB, 565x657, AnCap meme ball.jpg)
There is nothing more serious than the nazbol gang
File (): 4F7D099C4775DAF67BE63E4CC25DF9DB-2424593.png (2.3 MB, 2000x1334, TheWorldIsYoursLeslieFaire.png)
>>142763
Only on the internet as authoritarians try to make fun of us and we make fun of them back, and we make fun of ourselves for good measure.
Anarcho-capitalism has extensive material about it covering every aspect from multiple authors, so it isn't the brainchild of an edgy philosopher like Stirner's egoism.
I daresay that national socialism is more of a meme philosophy, considering that it's as edgy as it gets in today's world, a large number of Nazi LARPers don't understand it beyond Mein Kampf, and it has only a handful of books by its proponents that are largely not self-critical.
Only on the internet as authoritarians try to make fun of us and we make fun of them back, and we make fun of ourselves for good measure.
Anarcho-capitalism has extensive material about it covering every aspect from multiple authors, so it isn't the brainchild of an edgy philosopher like Stirner's egoism.
I daresay that national socialism is more of a meme philosophy, considering that it's as edgy as it gets in today's world, a large number of Nazi LARPers don't understand it beyond Mein Kampf, and it has only a handful of books by its proponents that are largely not self-critical.
>>142731
Nazbols are actually a real political party withing the Russian federation, which was banned in 2007, now there known as The other Russia
>link to the nazbol page on wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party
>link to the other Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Russia_(party)
but if you call youself a nazbol outside of russia then its basically a meme ideology, like anorcho-primitivism and anarcho-fascism.
Nazbols are actually a real political party withing the Russian federation, which was banned in 2007, now there known as The other Russia
>link to the nazbol page on wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party
>link to the other Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Russia_(party)
but if you call youself a nazbol outside of russia then its basically a meme ideology, like anorcho-primitivism and anarcho-fascism.
>>142763
I see ancaps as the rights version of communists. Its the anti-thesis of the matter so it makes sense.
The problem with anarcho capitalism is that it only works in a completely competitive market world, where there is perfect information and nearly everyone is a rational actor. But since people aren't all rational and there is never perfect information it will always just be an ideal and will never work.
I see ancaps as the rights version of communists. Its the anti-thesis of the matter so it makes sense.
The problem with anarcho capitalism is that it only works in a completely competitive market world, where there is perfect information and nearly everyone is a rational actor. But since people aren't all rational and there is never perfect information it will always just be an ideal and will never work.
>>142737
>>142754
>>142763
>>142774
I know what OP means though. The emphasis on irony plays a part in bringing these ideologies into fruition. If it's not that, then what else? Conservatism was given new life by large by memes. They're a dirty method, however they get ideas spread. Many people adopting them at first out of irony. It goes by this principle:
"Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."
Except you can replace "idiot" if you want out of any select ideology. I'll add another aspect to this too. Largely, these "movements" on the Internet only inhabit the Internet. They're fringe, and again irony plays into it. In the case of NazBol, its creator set it out to be an art movement. Even if they have a party like here >>142806, the conceptualisations are mostly theoretical with few (if any) real world applications. Look, the definition doesn't need to spelt out here. If you're ideologies are mostly known in memes and on the Internet, then it's likely to be a meme ideology.
>>142802
Anarcho capitalism is also a meme to major anarchists, because it's actually not definitively anarchist and its literature is scant compared to the intellectual foundations of anarchism which ancap does little to derive from. This has later even made Rothbard recant on the name "anarcho" capitalism. Instead choosing the phrase nonarchism.
>national socialism
The movement is largely self-critical by proxy. It's because of post-war stigma, national socialism has reiterated itself and blended with fascism and the far right. Taking many forms with a thriving scene in both Europe and America. Even pre-war and Hitler, you had a range of ideological progenitors which sometimes even conflicted each other such as the Strasserites, Gottfried Feder, or Goebbeles. Information is out there, but it's hard to find due to largely originating underground. I wouldn't hold it against national socialism due to its stigma and some vulgar espousers. Otherwise, that could be applied to others. National Socialism as well has an applied basis to reality.
>>142808
>rights verson of communism
Not really. There's egoism (again), left libertarians (the phrase libertarian used to be synonymous with anarchism until it was coopted), mutualism, voluntaryism, agorism, and some forms of anarcho syndicalism.
>>142754
>>142763
>>142774
I know what OP means though. The emphasis on irony plays a part in bringing these ideologies into fruition. If it's not that, then what else? Conservatism was given new life by large by memes. They're a dirty method, however they get ideas spread. Many people adopting them at first out of irony. It goes by this principle:
"Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."
Except you can replace "idiot" if you want out of any select ideology. I'll add another aspect to this too. Largely, these "movements" on the Internet only inhabit the Internet. They're fringe, and again irony plays into it. In the case of NazBol, its creator set it out to be an art movement. Even if they have a party like here >>142806, the conceptualisations are mostly theoretical with few (if any) real world applications. Look, the definition doesn't need to spelt out here. If you're ideologies are mostly known in memes and on the Internet, then it's likely to be a meme ideology.
>>142802
Anarcho capitalism is also a meme to major anarchists, because it's actually not definitively anarchist and its literature is scant compared to the intellectual foundations of anarchism which ancap does little to derive from. This has later even made Rothbard recant on the name "anarcho" capitalism. Instead choosing the phrase nonarchism.
>national socialism
The movement is largely self-critical by proxy. It's because of post-war stigma, national socialism has reiterated itself and blended with fascism and the far right. Taking many forms with a thriving scene in both Europe and America. Even pre-war and Hitler, you had a range of ideological progenitors which sometimes even conflicted each other such as the Strasserites, Gottfried Feder, or Goebbeles. Information is out there, but it's hard to find due to largely originating underground. I wouldn't hold it against national socialism due to its stigma and some vulgar espousers. Otherwise, that could be applied to others. National Socialism as well has an applied basis to reality.
>>142808
>rights verson of communism
Not really. There's egoism (again), left libertarians (the phrase libertarian used to be synonymous with anarchism until it was coopted), mutualism, voluntaryism, agorism, and some forms of anarcho syndicalism.
File (): 0CEA2340262CB88AA7E89851DDAE6CCD-324541.png (316.9 KB, 1397x786, LeslieFaireDoNotGiveInToEv….png)
>>142831
>>142832
>>142834
I'll never understand anarchists who say any form hierarchy is incompatible with their ideology. That turns them against all large-scale voluntary organizations, organized religions, and the family itself. These are the natural things that society is built upon, and hence anarchism has no solution to this unless if it is ultra-individualist/egoist or replaces everything with incredibly artificial "democratic worker committees." Left-anarchism is cancer and is self-defeating when it comes to the primary goal of destroying the State.
>>142811
Actually, anarcho-capitalism or right-wing anarchism is a much more natural form of anarchism as it recognizes that individuals must be free to interact in groups that exist non-coercively. Historical examples exist from the first civilizations through medieval Iceland, and anarcho-capitalism has roots in the 19th century from Gustave de Molinari and Lysander Spooner. Material on the subject ballooned in the 20th century with Mises, Rothbard, and their intellectual successors. It's sane anarchism which takes the moral justifications of anarchism and combines it with natural human nature and a well-ordered economic model.
Left-wing anarchism definitely is a meme insofar that its proponents, antisocial as they are, don't know where to even start. They want green energy, for instance, and blame capitalism for "suppressing" it, but simultaneously celebrate government subsidies for renewables. How is that anarchist?
>>142832
>>142834
I'll never understand anarchists who say any form hierarchy is incompatible with their ideology. That turns them against all large-scale voluntary organizations, organized religions, and the family itself. These are the natural things that society is built upon, and hence anarchism has no solution to this unless if it is ultra-individualist/egoist or replaces everything with incredibly artificial "democratic worker committees." Left-anarchism is cancer and is self-defeating when it comes to the primary goal of destroying the State.
>>142811
Actually, anarcho-capitalism or right-wing anarchism is a much more natural form of anarchism as it recognizes that individuals must be free to interact in groups that exist non-coercively. Historical examples exist from the first civilizations through medieval Iceland, and anarcho-capitalism has roots in the 19th century from Gustave de Molinari and Lysander Spooner. Material on the subject ballooned in the 20th century with Mises, Rothbard, and their intellectual successors. It's sane anarchism which takes the moral justifications of anarchism and combines it with natural human nature and a well-ordered economic model.
Left-wing anarchism definitely is a meme insofar that its proponents, antisocial as they are, don't know where to even start. They want green energy, for instance, and blame capitalism for "suppressing" it, but simultaneously celebrate government subsidies for renewables. How is that anarchist?
>>142844
You fundamentally ignore the horizontal nature of anarchism as opposed to the vertical structure of capitalism. Use of the naturalist fallacy doesn't actually provide any meritof critique, nor the rest of your vulgar conceptualisations. Not all of what I mentioned is even "left" anarchism like mutualism and agorism, yet you lump them together.
>simultaneously celebrate government subsidies for renewables
They literally don't. Association fallacy is a shit. Literal ecosocialists don't even think capitalism can solve the environmental crisis, and they made literally a book called "Green Capitalism: The God That Failed".
Anon, like I said, Rothbard recanted on using the term anarchist at all. That has to say something!
You fundamentally ignore the horizontal nature of anarchism as opposed to the vertical structure of capitalism. Use of the naturalist fallacy doesn't actually provide any meritof critique, nor the rest of your vulgar conceptualisations. Not all of what I mentioned is even "left" anarchism like mutualism and agorism, yet you lump them together.
>simultaneously celebrate government subsidies for renewables
They literally don't. Association fallacy is a shit. Literal ecosocialists don't even think capitalism can solve the environmental crisis, and they made literally a book called "Green Capitalism: The God That Failed".
Anon, like I said, Rothbard recanted on using the term anarchist at all. That has to say something!
>>142847
If you are correct, then yes, I cannot be an anarchist, as I recognize vertical (but voluntary) hierarchies must exist in a society as purely horizontal relationships will fail due to different talents. My main target is left-wing anarchism such as anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-mutualists and agorists are relative centrists and are relatively few in number compared with either side of the anarchist spectrum.
I couldn't care less what ecosocialists think.
We are literally arguing on semantics. This is the definition of anarchism: "Political ideology that holds all government – as in the state – to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful." Anarcho-capitalism is necessarily included in this unless if you try for a strict, exclusionary definition that refers to all organization rather than government. You're acting the same as socialists when they bicker as to what's "real communism" and what isn't, as there are a quintillion splinter groups of that ideology.
I argue on the basis of results. No government = anarchy
If you are correct, then yes, I cannot be an anarchist, as I recognize vertical (but voluntary) hierarchies must exist in a society as purely horizontal relationships will fail due to different talents. My main target is left-wing anarchism such as anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-mutualists and agorists are relative centrists and are relatively few in number compared with either side of the anarchist spectrum.
I couldn't care less what ecosocialists think.
We are literally arguing on semantics. This is the definition of anarchism: "Political ideology that holds all government – as in the state – to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful." Anarcho-capitalism is necessarily included in this unless if you try for a strict, exclusionary definition that refers to all organization rather than government. You're acting the same as socialists when they bicker as to what's "real communism" and what isn't, as there are a quintillion splinter groups of that ideology.
I argue on the basis of results. No government = anarchy
>>142872
You're literally arguing for hierarchy in anarchy. Take the piss of those ideologies all you want, but you're not an anarchist if you're an ancap and you're likely not going to upheave any anarchist theory like that. I get we're actually arguing semantics, and I've kep it that way. However, distinction is important. One of the first grasps of a theoretial basis. I understand your frustration and confusion, but there's no need for it. Anarchism is quite well defined. Certainly not "Political ideology that holds all government – as in the state – to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful," but your description is close. Incomplete, but close.
"a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."
This is better. Because, it summarises all things common in the various schools of thought, "You're not going to call someone boss." Even in the wikipedia article, ancap is marginally included to dispute its anarchism.
Much of your post is grossly ill conceived. One, you literaly ignore the bit about ecosocialists, not even acknowledging the point I was making (quite sutubbornly.) You stil, argue semantics, but at the last moment you move the goalpost to "arguing results". As if we were. Any other form of anarchism has had more real application and results than ancap. So, it's a moot point.
Also, if I may make a suggestion. Don't argue late into night. It's three in the morning for me.
You're literally arguing for hierarchy in anarchy. Take the piss of those ideologies all you want, but you're not an anarchist if you're an ancap and you're likely not going to upheave any anarchist theory like that. I get we're actually arguing semantics, and I've kep it that way. However, distinction is important. One of the first grasps of a theoretial basis. I understand your frustration and confusion, but there's no need for it. Anarchism is quite well defined. Certainly not "Political ideology that holds all government – as in the state – to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful," but your description is close. Incomplete, but close.
"a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."
This is better. Because, it summarises all things common in the various schools of thought, "You're not going to call someone boss." Even in the wikipedia article, ancap is marginally included to dispute its anarchism.
Much of your post is grossly ill conceived. One, you literaly ignore the bit about ecosocialists, not even acknowledging the point I was making (quite sutubbornly.) You stil, argue semantics, but at the last moment you move the goalpost to "arguing results". As if we were. Any other form of anarchism has had more real application and results than ancap. So, it's a moot point.
Also, if I may make a suggestion. Don't argue late into night. It's three in the morning for me.
>>142880
According to that definition, is Christian Anarchism not allowed to exist? After, God is an authority. Must an anarchist be an atheist?
Anarchism opposes coercive authority, generally embodied in the State. If you agree to clean someone's house there is no coercive authority involved. If you stay on to clean his house full-time as a professional servant, neither is any coercive authority involved even if you have a "boss."
According to that definition, is Christian Anarchism not allowed to exist? After, God is an authority. Must an anarchist be an atheist?
Anarchism opposes coercive authority, generally embodied in the State. If you agree to clean someone's house there is no coercive authority involved. If you stay on to clean his house full-time as a professional servant, neither is any coercive authority involved even if you have a "boss."
File (): 3DCD6B991EBFF09B542439BBD79D0AAE-48777.jpg (47.6 KB, 624x618, sexy bogdanoff.jpg)
File (): 5D67E8A41F1AD683B99A1D0A880F11FF-1082697.png (1.0 MB, 1000x1333, 1715768__explicit_alternat….png)
File (): BB903CA142A25A3623BFA06A1B2BBCE9-1291737.png (1.2 MB, 1000x1333, 1715815__explicit_alternat….png)
File (): 29289E610A8E8DD95136911450655F18-1136974.png (1.1 MB, 1000x1333, 1715766__explicit_alternat….png)
File (): FB7389CD204C507178083303F33F1204-1066766.png (1.0 MB, 1000x1333, 1715777__explicit_alternat….png)
File (): 85EFE776E7F15EDF85E0EDC29610E680-895743.png (874.7 KB, 1000x1333, 1715763__explicit_alternat….png)
>>142949
>shills are everywhere
We haven't been posting enough porn on the front page; that's why.
sage goes in all fields.
>shills are everywhere
We haven't been posting enough porn on the front page; that's why.
sage goes in all fields.
>>142908
On /pol/ there tends to be a lot of threads posted by OPs who then contribute nothing else to their own thread, used to slide. I'd figure nor/mlpol/ice would know this better than anyone, you don't find it odd that OP hides his flag, 'dedicates' this thread to the discussion of ideologies and then doesn't partake in his own thread?
It stinks of shill to me, that's all.
On /pol/ there tends to be a lot of threads posted by OPs who then contribute nothing else to their own thread, used to slide. I'd figure nor/mlpol/ice would know this better than anyone, you don't find it odd that OP hides his flag, 'dedicates' this thread to the discussion of ideologies and then doesn't partake in his own thread?
It stinks of shill to me, that's all.
File (): F7DFE3435AF54886D5E6CBDD553A03E8-3736823.gif (3.6 MB, 640x480, 1523775797776.gif)
>>142973
A lot of anons here do college, and if I'm not mistaken, finals are coming up, so we're going to be dead until that's over and our smarter anons come back to relax.
A lot of anons here do college, and if I'm not mistaken, finals are coming up, so we're going to be dead until that's over and our smarter anons come back to relax.
File (): 3B5A3E7CE37CCA5558FDD1CE7A8AA55B-28786.jpg (28.1 KB, 325x325, 13141522892.jpg)
>>142902
Christian anarchism honestly sounds like an oxymoron to me. I never heard of it. Its foundations seem a tad shody, but I'll forgive it for having its authority being metaphysical instead of physical. Many of them seem to reject insitutional religion, which seems like a more anarchistic basis than ancaps. They do after all reject capitalism or live in voluntary poverty. You actually found quite the loophole in thinking, however being an amiguous topic, I'm going to say that religion should be okay, but second to anarchism. You can think of tribes like this. Still, you muck up the meaning of participatory economics. Something we can define, but ought to be saved for later. The bureaucratic structure certainly doesn't fit though. That's more of mutualism's goal. Also, you don't need to throw around the word coercive like it means anything desu.
Christian anarchism honestly sounds like an oxymoron to me. I never heard of it. Its foundations seem a tad shody, but I'll forgive it for having its authority being metaphysical instead of physical. Many of them seem to reject insitutional religion, which seems like a more anarchistic basis than ancaps. They do after all reject capitalism or live in voluntary poverty. You actually found quite the loophole in thinking, however being an amiguous topic, I'm going to say that religion should be okay, but second to anarchism. You can think of tribes like this. Still, you muck up the meaning of participatory economics. Something we can define, but ought to be saved for later. The bureaucratic structure certainly doesn't fit though. That's more of mutualism's goal. Also, you don't need to throw around the word coercive like it means anything desu.
>>142811
>Not really.
You misinterpret what I mean.
Ask a "leftist" what they want their ideal society to look like and they will describe a communist society.
Ask someone on the "right" and they will describe ancap society.
Thats what I mean by the "rights" version of communism, its what people on the "right" ideally want.
But both sides don't that aren't cloud in the head idealists know neither work.
>Not really.
You misinterpret what I mean.
Ask a "leftist" what they want their ideal society to look like and they will describe a communist society.
Ask someone on the "right" and they will describe ancap society.
Thats what I mean by the "rights" version of communism, its what people on the "right" ideally want.
But both sides don't that aren't cloud in the head idealists know neither work.
>>142731
I agree with you, I wish you just didn't sound like a faggot. But yes, I think people more and more want to feel special, so they keep believing crazier and crazier shit. Essentially the Tumblr snowflake idea, but applied to political beliefs.
I agree with you, I wish you just didn't sound like a faggot. But yes, I think people more and more want to feel special, so they keep believing crazier and crazier shit. Essentially the Tumblr snowflake idea, but applied to political beliefs.
I don't see why everyone is so upset with the plethora of different ideologies and philosophies. We've entered into a golden age of political thought that hasn't been seen since the end of WWI. While there are many out there that I would completely shelve away as idiocy based on the merits of the thought and factors of necessity to maintain them it's exciting to see philosophies expanding as they are and more of the commen man entering into the political sphere. No matter what happens at the end of it I whole heartedly believe the modern world will be changed.
35 replies | 13 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived