[axm]

See it's statements like this that give Anarchy a bad name.

Fedsoc is probably an anarchist judging by his/her avatar.

In the eyes of liberals like you I am glad to give Anarchy "a bad name". Your ideas are such a gross corruption of Anarchism that giving it a bad name may be the only way to save it.

No, the best thing to do is show that anarcho-capitalism is a form of right-wing libertarianism then expose how ridiculous there ideology is.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

History has shown that people will rebel in developed capitalist countries.

History has shown that people in developed capitalist countries are docile.

Assuming the army and police would follow orders from the government. And remember the fact that in countries like the US guns are freely availble to citizens.

The army and police have no choice, since the government pays them.

That can only be a temporary measure, which a strong revolutionary movment would see for what it is.

Such things do not exist in places with welfare.

They would be crushed by paramilitary forces and possibly foreign troops. That is evident from every revolution in South America.

True, however Cuba proves that there is a greater chance of success in the developing world.

The will of western countries populations to fight for the interests of their capitalists is weak.

No they don’t. You see exploitation, but that’s not to the benefit of rich countries. That’s to the benefit of particular classes (particularly the financial class)

Correct, primerily it benefits the financial class. However due to the glut of wealth in a small area of the world, the wealth thus 'trickles down' to the rest of the population, sustaining them at a higher quality of life, than that which allows for revolution.

[Fedsoc]

Fedsoc is probably an anarchist judging by his/her avatar.

Yes I'm an anarchist. I've been an anarchist for a long time; since I was a boy old enough to understand political ideas. My Mother and Father were both anarchists - anarchist socialists to be precise. So I was raised on anarchism, and I have been a very passionate and staunch believer in anarchism practically my entire life.

Both of my parents are now dead. So for me anarchism has a very personal significance, as it is one of the things by which I remember my parents. It's a way for me to still connect to them after they are gone. So if I seem a little acrimonious in defense of my anarchism I apologize in advance. My intention is not to insult people, or to give anarchism a bad name.

I have thought long and hard about anarchism and what it stands for. It really is the most important thing in my life. The suffering of growing up in America - a society which couldn't possibly be more hostile to anarchism - has made me cling to it even more. But now I have realized that for most of my life I didn't really understand anarchism. It was only after I had applied myself to studying other ideas and philosophies - all the way from Marxism to Fascism, Liberalism, and even Buddhism - that I really came to what I now think is a truer and deeper understanding of anarchism, and I am all the more convinced.

One of the things that I realized was that the division between social anarchism and individualist anarchism is completely false and artificial. Anarchism is a fundamentally social philosophy, in the same way that it is a fundamentally individualist philosophy. Anarchism is the only philosophy which rejects that dichotomy, and establishes what seems to me a truism, which is that sociality and individuality depend upon and are inseparable from each other. Individuality presupposes collectivity. Our unique individual selves are a product of human sociality, and can only develop and prosper therein. There is nothing human beings do where they are not acting socially.

So called "anarcho-capitalism" just disgusts me, it has nothing to do with anarchism. Furthermore, it tries to insist that its false ideology is absolute truth. Anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than a sort of liberal extremism. The only thing "anarchist" about it is that it claims to oppose the state. Except that they have no idea what the state really is, or why anarchism opposes it. They are just unfathomably simple-minded cultists religiously subservient to the Church of Liberalism. They believe in the freedom of animals, and the equality of slaves. They are absolutely contemptuous of humanity, but they are too stupid to realize it. Anarchism and liberalism are diametrically opposed. I am currently writing an essay to establish this, and when I finish it I will post excerpts on this forum. I look forward to seeing its reception; however I don't anticipate that it will receive much agreement. In conclusion, to me anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism at all, it is only a pig-headed philosophy espoused by confused liberals using the wrong term to describe their ridiculous beliefs.

Anarchism is a comprehensive philosophy that can stand just fine on its own, it doesn't need to attach itself to other ideologies which don't share its convictions. I am not a libertarian socialist; the socialism of anarchism is nothing like the socialism of the modern day Marxists. The individualism of anarchism is nothing like the individualism of the liberals. This is the misunderstanding so many self-proclaimed "anarchists" have made, and it is why I can't stand people like Murray Bookchin and Murray Rothbard (is there just something about the name Murray?). Therefore, whereas I once described myself as a social anarchist, today I don't describe myself as anything but an anarchist simply. That is why my avatar is of Voltairine de Cleyre.

[HoniSoit]

The individualism of anarchism is nothing like the individualism of the liberals. This is the misunderstanding so many self-proclaimed "anarchists" have made, and it is why I can't stand people like Murray Bookchin and Murray Rothbard (is there just something about the name Murray?).

Welcome to the Anarchism subforum, Fedsoc.



That's an excellent post and you have raised many interesting points. With regard to your criticism of Bookchin, could you elaborate on how he misunderstands the individualism of anarchism?

[Fedsoc]

Bookchin sees anarchist individualism as anti-social, which it is not. He says it is opposed to organization and mass movements, which it is not. With Anarchists organization has to be non-authoritarian (which unfortunately it often slides in that direction), and in my opinion it should be about bringing people together, discussing ideas and educating people - in other words, it shouldn't organize people just for political struggle. I don't particularly look up to the type of organization that doesn't have specific political and social ideas that it wants to propagate. So for example organizing against the Iraq war, it may help end the Iraq war, but that's all it will do, capitalism doesn't have to win the Iraq war in order to survive.

His dual power theory of how confederated city councils, or what he calls communalism, can be able to somehow oppose or limit capitalism is not only naive, but anti-revolutionary.

Bookchin wrongly sees individualism as the driving force behind capitalism. He then goes on to equate anarchist individualism with capitalist individualism; he is unable to see that they are different things completely. Anarchist individualism is about freeing people from the crass material pursuit of property, and allowing them the freedom to develop their unique individuality and creativity, and giving them the opportunity to use it socially. Capitalist, or liberal individualism is just about egoism and making individuals reject sociality in favor of avariciousness and alienation.

Furthermore, Bookchin fails to see in the ecological crisis he writes so much about the seeds which will sow capitalism's destruction. He rejects theories about the breakdown of capitalism, and he seems to think that it could go on forever, which I think is absurd.

Edit: even though I wrote this as if Bookchin were still alive, I know he is recently deceased. I disagree with the man's ideas, but I think he had admirable integrity and good intention.

[Keynes]

Anarcho-Syndicalism or Anarcho-Socailism


Under an anarcho-capitalist society, anarcho-socialism or anarcho-syndicalism are free to exist. Under an anarcho-socialist or anarcho-syndicalist society, anarcho-capitalism cannot exist because a worker council can take stuff you've worked your whole life to acheive and use it for 'the greater good' (which will probaly be using it for their selfish ends, becuase people are always motivated by self interest).

All rights are simply an extension of property rights.

Firstly they are not free to exist under anarcho-capitalism or at least they are only if they adhere to the rules of the anarcho-capitalist society.

Secondly while I have little against most anarcho-capitalists and find some lovers of alot of liberty etc it is a much weaker philosophy with little grasp of the relations of society and individuals and quite absurd in its simplistic attempt to ground all such relations in property rights. This is certainly not the right way to go for complex, grown up, social ethics.

[Keynes]

It is not a form of anarchism because all anarchists are socialists (they oppose capitalism); it is the one feature which all anarchists share.

I think this is silly. It is a weak philosophy sure but it has some good bits and some anarcho-capitalists, particularly left-leaning ones like agorists are really libertarian(I mean this in the broad not American way.) and freedom loving.

[BlackSabbath]

Capitalist, or liberal individualism is just about egoism and making individuals reject sociality in favor of avariciousness and alienation.

When have liberals ever rejected society? Maybe some of the more nutty anarcho-individualists, like Max Stirner, did. But none of the classical liberals (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, etc.) did, and anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard and Konkin certainly do not.

"Society is in every state a blessing, but government, even its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." --Thomas Paine. Government is not necessary, but it is certainly evil, and I agree with the overall sentiment.

Has anyone considered that, historically, freer markets have resulted in less, not more, hierarchical societies? The rise of laissez-faire capitalism ended the feudal hierarchies of the middle ages. The monopolies of the nineteenth century were the result of state capitalism and mercantilism, not laissez-faire capitalism.

I would argue that, just as adding the prefix "anarcho-" to the word "socialism" makes anarcho-socialism inherently different from state socialism, so does adding the prefix "anarcho-" to capitalism make anarcho-capitalism inherently different from state capitalism.

The argument between anarcho-"socialists" and anarcho-"capitalists" is just silly. We are all anarchists, and the end of the state will have the same result no matter who brings it about--pure, unadulterated freedom of choice, existing for the first time in over six thousand years.

[Oxymoron]

Black how do you suggest people settle disputes, How do people defend against other united groups with out a organized leadership, how does society function with out laws?

[BlackSabbath]

Black how do you suggest people settle disputes, How do people defend against other united groups with out a organized leadership, how does society function with out laws?

This is where the real difference between anarcho-"capitalists" and "socialists" exists; what does society in an anarchy look like? "Capitalists" say people can settle disputes through private and voluntary (but binding) arbitration courts or, much preferably, by simply working it out among themselves. "Socialists" prefer to rely on direct, non-binding democracy, in which individuals discuss what should be done but are not necessarily bound by the decisions made if they don't agree with them.

"Capitalists" and "Socialists" both agree that defense against outside States would exist in the form of voluntary militias. (Would you want to invade an area full of heavily-armed, freedom-loving anarchists?) These would likely be more effective than hierarchical armies because they would be decentralized and thus couldn't be destroyed along with their leaders, because they would have a natural advantage as the defending force, and because actions by private individuals inevitably cost half or less as much as actions by governments (as explained in David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom). The effectiveness of militias has been demonstrated throughout history. The best example is probably the Vietnam War, in which a small militia force in a small territory was able to turn back the massive US Military. Anarchist militias would be even more effective because of their voluntary nature (i.e., no deserters, traitors, etc.) Furthermore, anarchist militias would be a purely defensive force, and would not invade other countries because they would only be mobilized in the event of an invasion. One last advantage--militias, unlike militaries, could not be wiped out in a single nuclear blast.

As to how society functions without laws, I believe I addressed that in the first paragraph; victims of crimes would appeal to anarchist courts for restitution (not retribution or rehabilitation). If this is not enough of an explanation, I can elaborate, but now my fingers are getting tired from all this typing .

One final note; in an anarchy, a group of individuals could decide to have anarcho-socialist or anarcho-capitalist courts, or both. People who disagreed with this decision could join a group that had decided on something else (or, for that matter, live off on their own, apart from society entirely). Thus, individual liberty would be upheld.

[Keynes]

The argument between anarcho-"socialists" and anarcho-"capitalists" is just silly. We are all anarchists, and the end of the state will have the same result no matter who brings it about--pure, unadulterated freedom of choice, existing for the first time in over six thousand years.

This is mostly true, we should argue less. However there are important issues that divide us.

The most important is anarcho-capitalism's often crude and simplistic view of society and the individual which is epitomised by Rothbard's attempt to completely ground his social ethics in property rights something that other American style libertarians have a great affinity for as well.

Another related issue is a more practical one of rent, interest and most importantly wage labour and the wages system that social anarchists and Mutualists generally feel are a product of coercion and that property rights are largely social conventions not some absolute pact between an individual and the earth and they should be adapted to give the most freedom and scope for individuality.

Finally there is just the different outlooks and the use by ancaps of things like Neoclassical and Austrian economics and, although I personally feel Austrian economics has some merit in parts even if Neoclassical has little, most social anarchists are extremely dubious of schools of thought like this as I'm sure ancaps are of socialist, institutional and radical economics.

[Keynes]

When have liberals ever rejected society? Maybe some of the more nutty anarcho-individualists, like Max Stirner, did. But none of the classical liberals (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, etc.) did, and anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard and Konkin certainly do not.

Just an aside, I object to the implication that American style libertarianism is the natural and unique successor of mainstream classical liberalism. It is influenced by parts of it to varying degrees but it is a different philosophy and American style libertarians do not equal classical liberals.

Perhaps this wasn't exactly what you meant but this is a view I rarely have a chance to get across, so I'll take that chance.

[Aufheben]

http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolitio ... arian.html

[Aufheben]

I have thought long and hard about anarchism and what it stands for. It really is the most important thing in my life. The suffering of growing up in America - a society which couldn't possibly be more hostile to anarchism - has made me cling to it even more. But now I have realized that for most of my life I didn't really understand anarchism. It was only after I had applied myself to studying other ideas and philosophies - all the way from Marxism to Fascism, Liberalism, and even Buddhism - that I really came to what I now think is a truer and deeper understanding of anarchism, and I am all the more convinced.

One of the things that I realized was that the division between social anarchism and individualist anarchism is completely false and artificial. Anarchism is a fundamentally social philosophy, in the same way that it is a fundamentally individualist philosophy. Anarchism is the only philosophy which rejects that dichotomy, and establishes what seems to me a truism, which is that sociality and individuality depend upon and are inseparable from each other. Individuality presupposes collectivity. Our unique individual selves are a product of human sociality, and can only develop and prosper therein. There is nothing human beings do where they are not acting socially.

So called "anarcho-capitalism" just disgusts me, it has nothing to do with anarchism. Furthermore, it tries to insist that its false ideology is absolute truth. Anarcho-capitalism is nothing more than a sort of liberal extremism. The only thing "anarchist" about it is that it claims to oppose the state. Except that they have no idea what the state really is, or why anarchism opposes it. They are just unfathomably simple-minded cultists religiously subservient to the Church of Liberalism. They believe in the freedom of animals, and the equality of slaves. They are absolutely contemptuous of humanity, but they are too stupid to realize it. Anarchism and liberalism are diametrically opposed. I am currently writing an essay to establish this, and when I finish it I will post excerpts on this forum. I look forward to seeing its reception; however I don't anticipate that it will receive much agreement. In conclusion, to me anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism at all, it is only a pig-headed philosophy espoused by confused liberals using the wrong term to describe their ridiculous beliefs.

Anarchism is a comprehensive philosophy that can stand just fine on its own, it doesn't need to attach itself to other ideologies which don't share its convictions. I am not a libertarian socialist; the socialism of anarchism is nothing like the socialism of the modern day Marxists. The individualism of anarchism is nothing like the individualism of the liberals. This is the misunderstanding so many self-proclaimed "anarchists" have made, and it is why I can't stand people like Murray Bookchin and Murray Rothbard (is there just something about the name Murray?). Therefore, whereas I once described myself as a social anarchist, today I don't describe myself as anything but an anarchist simply. That is why my avatar is of Voltairine de Cleyre.

I must say, even as a marxist, I find this post to be excellent. You're obviously well-educated on the subject. I specifically agree with what you wrote about individualism and collectivism, in fact I believe there are example of similar reasoning in Hegels and Marx works. And I like how you sluaghtered Anarchocapitalism, because really, no other ideological group annoys me quite as much. Sure, I'm not that fond of randists either, so it might be a tie between the two as to which group I dislike the most.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

State socialism has failed. Libertarian socialism hasn't. there were no mass murders in any anarchist societys.

I thought they murdered a pretty large number of priests and monks/nuns.

[Red Star]

Indeed, in areas of Spain that did happen. It is regretable and I wouldn't support it. However, it wasn't an organised policy and also has a lot to do with Spanish history - most of these murders were in agricultural areas where the peasants associated priests with corruption and the hated "lantifunda" system that exploited them. It was revenge gone too far rather than a tenet of Spanish anarchism.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Indeed, in areas of Spain that did happen. It is regretable and I wouldn't support it. However, it wasn't an organised policy and also has a lot to do with Spanish history - most of these murders were in agricultural areas where the peasants associated priests with corruption and the hated "lantifunda" system that exploited them. It was revenge gone too far rather than a tenet of Spanish anarchism.

I know that. It is just an indictment of mob-rule though, that one can have mass-revenge by individuals in a movement that doesn't officially back their own action.

Except by such famous rhetoric as.

"The only Church that illuminates is a burning Church".

If you believe in Anarchism, basically you advocate arming people without imposing upon them the discipline upon them to control precisely how they use their own weapons. "Liberty" and "Military" are normally opposed for a good reason, you can't have people with weapons who are required to fight a war (and therefore disarm or kill their enemies), without actually giving them precise instructions about whom to kill and enforcing one's instructions by force (in other words militery discipline).

In order to control the violence of people to an established plan, one must have a militery orginised in a "Statist" manner and deprive all serious militery orginisation from independant individuals. In otherwords, you must cease to be an Anarchist.

The policy of "Anarchism" as such is irrelavant. Beacause the Anarchist by nature has no militery discipline, even if have militery orginisation. If one advocates placing weapons in the hands of 'The Anarchists' and allowing them to orginise their own militery forces in an Anarchist manner, then you bear responsability for the resulting atrocities, whether or not it was your intention that they happen or not.

[Anarcho Capitalist]

OK Im new on this forum.

I decide to register while reading this topic.

I think that people are against anarcho capitalism because they think they wont suceed in life. Life gives oportunities of money and succes to all the people. So dont tell me that we are all the same. There is better and worse people. The fact of not having private property doesnt let you get better. Its like a game where there is a ranking. If everybody was at the same place in the ranking the game would be nonsense, like all types of socialism.
If you know how to get money, get it.
If not, let the natural selection act. Humans are animals, the mantention of worse individuals obstaculizes the evolution.

Maybe this was too frontal for a first post, huh?

[Archon]

Anarchism traditionally grew out of the larger socialist movement. To be an anarcho-capitalist one would have to suspend total disbelief in this concept or to blatantly ignore it.

[RustyDialectic]

The debate between ancaps and property-free anarchy seems to be a moot point. If a bunch of Objectivists want to trade little pieces of paper for goods and services, why should you coerce them into doing other wise? That seems to me an illegitimate use of force, and your authority over them. They can't force you to use money, they can't "buy out" your town or your land or your farm or whatever... If town A wants to be ancap and town B wants to be anarcho-communist, and town C wants to do something different, there's no reason for A, B and C to force each other to use their system.