No.2046
Hey Arisu, do you watch Trouble? It's a monthly show made by submedia, the same guys who used to make stimulator's ITEOTWAWKIAIFF. Unlike that show Trouble is not about recent events but every episode is centered about a single topic.
The most recent episode was about hacking, they interviewed all kind of interesting people, including Jeremy Hammond. It's aimed at people who don't know much about the topic but are politically active, so it's a bit basic but for that purpose I found it very good. What do you think about it?
If you have not seen it, here you can watch it:
https://sub.media/video/trouble-8-hack-the-system/https://archive.org/details/TroubleS1E8Some older episodes very also pretty /cyb/, like #5 which was about surveillance, but unlike most other resources on the topic it did not ignore the problem of snitches and informants. Episode #6 on counter-insurgency was also very good, and I also liked #7 which is about community organized disaster relief.
No.2074
>>2046I saw the teaser somewhere, IDR where though. With Jeremy Hammond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF_mSPvS46Q No.2075
Really silly video editing/clips, but overall decent episode. I like the series, but can't help but this one was kinda cringey at points.
No.2113
Can someone remind me how hacktivism and "toxic masculinity" are at all related? I just don't understand why this is being used to push a progressive agenda when people there do not have a political ideology. They woman in the video literally calls the lack of one "dangerous" just because people supported gamergate, or just because they are more moderate than full retard antifa. The video implies that the lack of a political ideology is bad, and that the solution is of course to give it the ideology of SJWs/antifa. Of course, this is not the case and the real answer is to just keep politics out of it. Wikileaks is good because there is no ideology; Assange spent the decade before going after Bush and now he is going after the democrats. Of course, millenials that think that the internet is their cluster of retarded social networks don't remember that.
The idea that people wanting for video game reviewers to not have sex with developers are the ones ruining the anonymous movement are absurd. In fact, it's historical revisionism: Chanology worked because there wasn't any political change behind it, save for the removal of a bullsoykaf religion.
No.2114
What's with the current invasion of /pol/ retards?
No.2120
>>2113sub.media is a very left-wing group, it's not a bad thing.
I will agree it was a bit out there… but I would say it's showing a growing problem with politics and the influence of extreme right-wing groups like neo nazi's.
No.2128
>>2113It's an anarchist show, they are very open about it.
How do you think releasing political documents that others want to remain secret is not ideological? Are you really this naive? Claiming Wikileaks is not ideological makes zero sense.
No.2143
>>2113>decade before going after Bush and now he is going after the democrats>there is any meaningful difference between these two groupsOh, I forgot, the democrats want to cut the corporate tax rate slightly less.
No.2148
>>2143I meant ideology as political ideology. Wikileaks of course has an ideology but it has not political agenda save for political transparency regardless of alignment.
No.2149
>>2148That is a political agenda.
No.2194
https://sub.media/donate/"Being a professional anarchists isn’t cheap…. so a big thank you to our generous illuminati overlords. Together we will destroy democracy and usher in a socialist New World Order."
nervous laughter No.2195
>>2194To this day I have no idea how can claim to be an anarchist and a socialist simultaneously. They're completely incompatible.
No.2196
>>2195You don't have to claim it, anarchism is a socialist ideology. If you are an anarchist, technically you are also a socialist. Sometimes people wrongly use "socialist" to mean social democrat or even worse, social liberal, but that shouldn't confuse you. Socialism refers to a group of ideologies originating from the industrial revolution, aiming to answer the "social question."
No.2197
>>2196>so·cial·ism>ˈsōSHəˌlizəm>noun>a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.The only way to enforce socialism is to - well - enforce it. The moment anyone has any authority anarchism ceases to exist.
No.2203
>>2196I don't think we can make it that easy. If we ignore ancaps all anarchist movements are leftists. I personally see myself more as a mutualist and wouldn't describe myself as a socialist. Anarchism itself is a broad political spectrum
No.2205
>>2203Mutualism is a socialist ideology.
No.2208
>>2205I agree that it's a radical left wing policy but it still differs a lot from anarcho communism/syndicalism or green anarchism.
No.2211
>>2205Mutualism has socialist elements. I'm an ancap and I agree with a good chunk of it, at least compared to the very far left socialist anarchists.
No.2221
File: 1513025835625.jpg (Spoiler Image, 192.65 KB, 945x945, big_artfichier_723900_2824….jpg)
The level of political idiocy in this thread is appalling.
1. "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron. You can not be capitalist and anarchist. Only incult morons that think anarchy=anti-state can get to this level of idiocy. Anarchy is about putting an end to all forms of oppression, the first being the state AND the capital. Obviously, you can't be an anarchist without also being antifascist and antisexist.
2) Anarchism, Socialism and Communism are, in essence, the same political project : to establish a classless society. Historically, only the means differed : socialists and communists felt that taking the political power was a necessary step where anarchists want to destroy it. We saw where it got them ("Power is cursed, that's why I'm an anarchist" - Louise Michel)
3) There is no such thing, you cringy illiterates, such thing as political neutrality. Never was, never will be. Apolitical means ok with the current state of things means conservative means right wing. There is no "outside" of one or another political agenda. Pick your side chummer.
Also read up. Kropotkin, Bakunin, Debord, Foucault, Bookchin & many others are waiting for ya
For y'all americans, CrimeTheInc makes so really tasty and didactical texts & stuff
No.2222
>>2221>Apolitical means ok with the current state of things means conservative means right wingOh boy.
I swear I knew that was a freaking AntiFa symbol before I even moved my cursor to click it.
No.2223
>>2221>an·ar·chism>ˈanərˌkizəm/Submit>noun>belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.Communism only works if you have a government to enforce it, and you can't be an anarchist while advocating for government. Anarchism is inherently capitalist,
because capitalism is literally just letting people do what they want with their money and possessions No.2225
>>2221The level of general idiocy in this post is appalling.
>1. This words means what I think it means and now what it literally means
>2. Here I state the obvious
>3. This political policy deployed by entities disinterested in political activism of any kind doesn't exist because I don't like it! REEEEEEEEEE
>Read up kids, I'm apparently a non american soykafter who most likely resides in a leftist country and LARPs online because fuck drumpfbruh
No.2226
>>2223Except capitalism also means private property, that is property that you do not possess but claim ownership of and use this claim of ownership to take from those who actually possess it. Private property is only possible with the state guaranteeing your private property rights. It is the state's primary function in capitalist countries. There can be no capitalism without a state; any such attempts will necessary reintroduce the state in some form.
No.2227
>>2226That's not true at all. Capitalism isn't even a system. Sure, you wouldn't have anyone to help you protect what you own, but that doesn't mean you don't. You're just entering into an agreement with someone else and taking the risk that they won't try to stab you in the back on your way out the door.
You have the equipment, and they want to make things with it. By supplying them with it you agree to take whatever percentage of the profit you agree upon so that they can make their thing. That's it.
The difference between capitalism and communism is that one is a form of government and the other is people doing whatever the hell they want. By definition, you can have anarcho-capitalism, and by definition there is no such thing as anarcho-communism. don't call people politically illiterate when you are not only politically illiterate yourself, but just plain illiterate
No.2228
>>2227Both capitalism and communism are economic systems. Neither are forms of government.
Even the most radical theories of "anarcho"-capitalism agree that you are certainly not allowed to do whatever the hell you want. People collectively prohibit certain forms of behaviour, most notably aggression towards others and their property.
Please don't further embarrass yourself by trying to act like you are some kind of expert when it is evident that your education has failed you.
No.2229
>>2228>Even the most radical theories of "anarcho"-capitalism agree that you are certainly not allowed to do whatever the hell you want. People collectively prohibit certain forms of behaviour, most notably aggression towards others and their property.And they enforce that how, exactly? With armed force? The moment there is a rule of law there ceases to be true anarchy. Communism requires people to submit to an authority that quite literally has the ability to shoot them if they refuse to cooperate. You know, like any utopia.
"Capitalism" in its purest form is just the complete lack of regulation. Communism uses force to coerce people into doing things for the "greater good".
For the record, I'm not an anarchist. Just a capitalist. And so far you've given me no reason to change my mind outside of "you're just uneducated - here, let's use my imaginary definition of anarchy so that I'm right"
No.2230
>>2229If you don't have any idea about what "anarcho"-capitalism is, why are you trying so hard to defend it? You are just embarrassing yourself.
Private property needs to be enforced with armed force. That's what states do. There's no capitalism without a state. There's no "complete lack of regulation" because the basis of private property relations is an act of regulation. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a utopia.
No.2233
>>2230> "Anarcho"-capitalism is a utopia.>no FDA or similar agency to make sure water isn't poisoned>have to buy life straw(TM) to make sure I don't die.>no EPA, so need a gas mask to breath next to corporations.>patents make it so if I code something I'll get sued.free at last
No.2234
>>2230If I thought it would work, I would be an anarchist, wouldn't I? I think advocating any form of anarchy is ridiculously naive or malevolently cruel. Humans tear each other apart - we've been doing it for millennia.
Say you build a machine that can make something - which sounds like a government and regulation to you?
>Option one - Your machine is now owned by the public "collective" and you have no ownership of it, every profit made by the use of your creation goes to whoever used it and you don't see a penny
>Option 2 - You choose to lend out your machine so that other people can make stuff with it while giving you a percentage of the profit - after all, they wouldn't be able to make the thing without itJust because your property is not enforceable under anarchy doesn't mean that action is not capitalism. On the other hand, if the public "collective chooses to take it from you and prevent you from doing that, they have by definition created a rule of law and anarchy ceases to be.
I'm not an anarchist at all because I think it's a retarded idea. But between capitalism and communism, only capitalism is theoretically capable of coexisting with anarchy. Under a capitalist "system", you can choose to let anyone use your machine for entirely their own benefit if you want - under a communist system you are forced to only choose one option.
No.2236
>>2231I meant as a collective. Communism would be enforced by the people of the country(if you could still call it one), which means it would be enforced by a government. By "law", there is technically no possible means of enforcement, because there is no law. A private defense force is a private entity taking money and making agreements with clients. It's not enforcement in the regulatory sense
No.2245
The political illiteracy of Americans really is astounding.
No.2247
>>2245That's a great argument, why didn't I think of that!
No.2253
>>2247it's not an argument, it's not useful to write it and i'm not the one you were responding too, but let me say that sometimes that's so astonishing that you really feel the necessity to express it. Don't see it necessarily as a snob thing.
(sage for not important post)
No.2258
The amount of cringe in this thread is amazing…
No.2259
>>2248jeremy hammond a qt
No.2276
>>2248Hey, what about sending him a copy of the lainzine? I'm sure he would appreciate.
Or you think that the feds screening letters can be a problem cause that's going to make three-letters-agencies getting to know arisuchan existence? Do they really give a fuck anyway?
https://freejeremy.net/take-action/writing-to-jeremy/let me know what do you think about it, lain!
No.2290
>>2276Arisuchan is a piece of soykaf not worth its secrecy if it can't even operate under full surveillance by all 3 letter agencies.
So if a lainzine is not sent on that account, they know about us but don't care because there's nothing of interest here; if we do send one, we have been promoted cool wannabe kids and nothing happened again.
No.2307
>>2113> there is no ideology;wat
he hates neocons
those were both neocons
he hates authority more than any teenager you can find
WL is pure ideology
No.2323
Communism is anarchist in nature, for communism is a society that has achieved statelessness, where money is no longer necessary and classes have disappeared. It is the end goal of every socialist society, which under Lenin's definition is a transitional period where a state exists to defend the gains of the revolution defended under a vanguard.
Even under the definition that the most oppressive regimes give (none of which claim to be communism but claim to want communism) are ancaps on point about communism being a heavily government enforced society.
No.2324
Both anarchists and marxists have the same end goal, unless you are anti-civ, primitivist or mutualist. The difference is what to do before that and how society will be structured.
