I think there's something wrong here.

Big Government on its own it's not a dictatorship, it's what you do with that size what matters (FDR's New Deal was as big as big government gets, and everybody except lunatics will argue it was bad [come on, talk shit about something which beneficial effects .

I could give you a lesson, one I've learned the "hard" way (tho with a patient instructress), about how mere size on its own just simply doesn't cut it, but then again I might be triggering your incel sensibilities and lose sight of what's important, which is how this meme demonstrates American Echonservatives' complete lack of knowledge about poli sciences 101 (Let alone 102 or, God forbid 201).

Can you guys get more cartoonish?

Totalitarianism on its own is not an ideology, and anarchism is far left. I love it when the right repeatedly demonstrates their total ignorance on politics.

Anarchy is complete lack of governance. Its the farthest right you can go. Totalitarianism is an ideology. Its when the government rules without the input of the people they rule over.

Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Cafiero, Tolstoy, Parsons, Most, Berkman, Goldman, Tucker, Spooner… all left-wing. And it’s obvious you haven’t read any of them.

The political spectrum does not simply mean the farther left you go, the more government and vice versa. Mussolini and Hitler and Franco were all far-right fascists who murdered anarchists and socialists.

Totalitarianism is the result of some ideologies, most notably fascism, so you should have put it on the right, but since you’re confused, you didn’t.

Lol...Where's the spectrum of fence sitters?

Right between liberal and conservative.

Essentially the left keeps saying fascism is on the right of the political spectrum but in reality it's just another form of socialism. It's a little more honest.

Guy who has never read anything on fascism

I used to read college history books for fun when I was a teenager. I know more about history than you'll ever know.

Oxymoron.

Explain

Anarchy and capitalism are incompatible. For one, a state is necessary to uphold capitalist society. The state paved the way for capitalism to exist through the enclosure acts, the violent seizure of villages of the commons, and the state is currently being used to continuously grab more land and protect the wealth and power of the property owners in society. If you really believe in freedom for all, you’d believe in it for everyone, not just those few who make all our decisions because of their wealth and property.

Two, it is still incompatible because anarchism is left-wing. Capitalism is right-wing. Anarchism rejects social and economic hierarchies, especially centralization, but capitalism demands it through class society and the expansion and corporatization of firms, exercising more control over individual workers. Capitalism essentially enables multiple dictators who are free to do whatever on their own private property even if it harms people or deprives them of living necessities.

Anarcho-capitalism, even with all its contradictions, if it were to be put into practice, would collapse quickly because everything is private property, and you need to pay to use roads or to even exist anywhere at any time. Poorer classes will still exist, including homeless, so where will they go if everything is private property? Murray Rothbard answered this question by saying, “who cares?”.

Yeah it's just as much of a oxymoron as Anarcho communism
In pure (government free)capitalism everything is decentralized
Second is the nap "nonaggression principles" I suggest you look them up
Third. All that would matter is the ability to work, even if they're selling their shit as fertilizer for a few years while working on a more valuable skill they're just as capable as anyone else to get by

What makes it decentralized? Firms already have bosses and management above all of the workers, there is no entity preventing a capitalist firm from monopolizing markets (occasionally a state will break up firms that get too big). What’s funny is, an ancap will say it’s okay if a business becomes very big and powerful, that only happens because it serves the consumers right! Consider how they treat their workers. And last I heard, ancaps hate unions.

The NAP is laughable considering it’s just something everyone is expected to follow even though some people will be living in absolute poverty due to artificial scarcity created by private property. I don’t trust a “private police force” not to impose tyranny.

Capitalism is all about success. Only a few become successful, and the rest sell their labor. Sometimes jobs are scarce. Sometimes people are unable to work, can’t afford higher education or be allowed other opportunities to earn a comfortable living. Capitalism can uproot anyone at any time and take the stability right from underneath them because anyone can be fired at any time. But, that’s true freedom, amirite?

If you would sell freedom for peace you don't deserve either-a quote by some guy

You should read The Conquest of Bread if you’re interested in anarchy.

There will be more competition in the marketplace therefore large corporations can't exist (not to mention they only exist because of government now

Monopolies existed during the gilded age without government intervention.

Communism is a utopian society that is literally "moneyless" and "stateless" according to its VERY DEFINITION.

It might be a utopia and it certainly is nothing but a noble goal used as reference, not actual goal, but they're the opposite of an oxymoron.

You really are an Oxy-idem.

Just tell him that power centralization under corporate capitalism is precisely, the reason why corporate hierarchies are as vertical a hierarchy as an empire of old, specially so when compared with the democratic nations they usually operate under.

Just tell him that worker co-ops, which can still operate under a free market legal framework like Grupo Mondragón, are definitionally less vertical because their organizational structure, DECENTRALIZES OWNERSHIP away from corporate style owners and investors/shareholders, into the work force that makes the enterprise to work and be something to invest on in the first place.

Private owners still get to delegate and make money without working, they just can't earn more than a set amount of times than their average employee, and don't posses divine control over what the company produces, meaning nobody is expropriating anybody, and it's not a redistribution when the labor surplus is being stolen*, you go live in N. Korea and experience the verticality of its pseudo-soviet, state capitalist, hereditary monarchy)

The USSR was too vertical for anarchists, and to be fair, most people considering socialists today.

Co-ops are more horizontal and they operate in a more similar way as the democratic government they might be operating under.

Anarchism is the current of critical thinking that analyzes human hierarchies, but I guess that Lobsters having a reward mechanism in their nervous system, just like every other single animal in the world,

Just give them the basics and let them mald, cope and writhe, for each wincing is an argument in your favor.

*If they try to talk the slightest smack about labor theory of value, ask them what superpowers do entrepreneurs have, that don't require the labor of either scabs or robots to turn time and resources into marketable products.

*If they cry inflation, ask where the CCP thugs breaking Japan's legs for operating under a national debt of 300% of its GDP, without needing not even half of the "Austerity" measures that every other capitalist country has gone through, for literally nothing because money is not a natural resource, it's a construct of the mind materialized into cheap, almost endlessly replicable tokens, because it's more intuitive than bartering, which is rendered obsolete the moment your society gets more complex than neolithic communities of farmers bartering food, in exchange for tools with of metallurgist communities.

We do, live in a society...