Yeah, Anarcho-Communism is a great idea, though I'm more partial to Egoism, or Individual Anarchism. It's essentially the use of liberal and socialist policies to enable a person to become as successful as they want while giving everyone else the same opportunity as them. This idea was established by Max Stirner, and other Young Higelians. It pretty much equates to a mixed-socialist direct democracy.

Too bad humanity is split into a greed and power type state.

Not me. I just did a political compass test.



I'm not surprised in the slightest. Though I am surprised I'm not further towards the authoritarian position. Ah well.

Wrong.

Do research, read into actual guidelines of factions, and decide what you are.

Sothe how is this "individualist anarchism" stuff any different from stereotypical American-ism? Skimming the wikipedia article it just sounds like your typical fetishism of the "rugged independent entrepreneur" type that is all up in modern world's mythology.

George Washington and a few of his contemporaries were individual anarchists as well, and these views were imprinted on American culture. It's not that it's anything like the jingoists these days, more like it's because of Americans natural leaning towards "freedom". It's very different though, because it's radical liberalism, not laissez-faire, and dependent on many factors such as solidarity and unionization. In America, we live in a mixed capitalist democratic republic. While a mixed capitalist society appeals to the pursuit of greatness many egoists yearn for, it creates unequal opportunities, doesn't take everyone into consideration, and has no way to stop or fix economic problems. It's why we're in a recession now, and why we were in a depression the previous century. As for the democratic republic, it's a completely unfair institution. Nobody gets say, they only get to vote for the corrupt people who they disagree with the least. Democratic republics are basically systems in which the people pick their own dictators, rather than people having sovereignty in their own local governments, and by extension the fedgov. There are many other differences, but if I tried to go on about them it'd come out as incoherent ramblings since this paragraph is pretty cluttered as is.

To put it short, it's because our first president was an anarchist, and many statists were imprinted by his ways, though they didn't stay true to his views. And with our long history as a capitalist nation, the applied mentality is similar but not the same as the distant existential political movements of the old times.

To put it shorter, both statists and anarchists base their views off of similar revolutionary thinkers from the post-renaissance

To put it shortest, cause im an american

Ok so like, yeah these are lots of bad things about the American system but how exactly does individualist anarchism address these issues? How is it that make a level playing field, take everyone into consideration, and fix economic problems? This is not an attack, I'm genuinely interested to know and would be willing to go and read a thing if you link it.

But still even from the name itself it seems like it would share a fundamental problem with most of modern society: the idea that success is an individual endeavor, not a collective effort.

Many anarchists work on a local level in an attempt to "smash the state", by pushing reforms in every way they can. When they say smash the state, they really mean reform the state through rallies, protests, public demonstrations, even voting, though events can get really .. creative. Anarchists are people of many political and economic views may be contrary to each other, but are always united to come up with a solution that benefits everybody, and such decisions are made based on the problems and resources at hand; and in cases where extra steps are made leading to a proper democracy, everyone's thoughts and wants/needs are still considered.

It was Stirner who believed that individual and social success are interdependent. Through our individual success through their most favored labor, we give back to our society in something similar to a syndicalist society. And with this social success, everyone gets the resources to be just as successful as the next individual. It's sort of like a mixed socialist system, think modern France.

Additional resources:
http://struggle.ws/pdfs/whatis.pdf a decent leaflet on the general idea
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 The Ego And His Own, by Max Stirner (Theories on modern anarchism and existentialism as well as pioneering egoist thoughts)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAFAQ couldn't find a link to the book, its on social anarchism

Social anarchism and Individual anarchism cross over into each other, the only difference being their foundations as schools of thought
I support both ideologies, as well as several other schools of thought, such as free love, syndicalism, and gift economy

Done that before. Still right wing authoritarian. I could be described as a very, very mild Fascist. Though that word is perhaps a bit too strong even mildly.

Though I do have a fondness for state capitalism. Probably stems from when I was in university and had a communist party membership card. I lost that thing a long time ago, though.

Corporate attorneys

Patent/copyright lawyers. Though really the demand for them is spurred by the whole copyright/patent weirdness currently going on, if that were alleviated they wouldn't be nearly so bad.

Hey man, don't be dissing Calvins dad, not cool.

For the longest time I had no idea Calvin and Hobbes was named after famous existentialists

I took that political test and...

Well I dunno. I don't really care for politics like voting wise but sure if it comes up in a conversation I have a few opinions. It's kinda where I thought I was anyways.

Emos Got Ones