[Rothbardian]

You don't have to read about anarchy to understand it. Anarchy is how you live when a maffioso or federal agent (I am repeating myself) isn't pointing a gun at you.

[anticlimacus]

Anarchy is how you live when a maffioso or federal agent (I am repeating myself) isn't pointing a gun

No it is not. Anarchism is actually a political theory, albeit eclectic, or a variety of political theories that posits highly organized societies based on voluntary interaction and with the absence of unjustified and centralized coercive institutions. People walking down the street without guns to their heads are not, necessarily, the living embodiment of anarchism--and neither are they necessarily anarchists.

Maybe this is where the disconnect is?--anarchism is not simply an idea about individuals without restrictions. It is about social organization.

[Red Barn]

Rarely have the concepts that literally define the best of Western culture--its notions of a meaningful History, a universal Civilization, and the possibility of Progress--been called so radically into question as they are today. In recent decades, both in the United States and abroad, the academy and a subculture of self-styled postmodernist intellectuals have nourished an entirely new ensemble of cultural conventions that stem from a corrosive social, political, and moral relativism. This ensemble encompasses a crude nominalism, pluralism, and skepticism, an extreme subjectivism, and even outright nihilism and antihumanism in various combinations and permutations, sometimes of a thoroughly misanthropic nature. This relativistic ensemble is pitted against coherent thought as such and against the "principle of hope" (to use Ernst Bloch's expression) that marked radical theory of the recent past. Such notions percolate from so-called radical academics into the general public, where they take the form of personalism, amoralism, and "neoprimitivism."

Too often in this prevailing "paradigm," as it is often called, eclecticism replaces the search for historical meaning; a self-indulgent despair replaces hope; dystopia replaces the promise of a rational society; and in the more sophisticated forms of this ensemble a vaguely defined "intersubjectivity"--or in its cruder forms, a primitivistic mythopoesis--replaces all forms of reason, particularly dialectical reason. In fact, the very concept of reason itself has been challenged by a willful antirationalism. By stripping the great traditions of Western thought of their contours, nuances, and gradations, these relativistic "post-historicists," "postmodernists," and (to coin a new word) "post-humanists" of our day are, at best, condemning contemporary thought to a dark pessimism or, at worst, subverting it of all its meaning.

***

Perhaps the most problematic aspect of relativism is its moral arbitrariness. The moral relativism of the trite maxim "What's good for me is good for me, and what's good for you is good for you," hardly requires elucidation.[2] In this apparently most formless of times, relativism has left us with a solipsistic morality and in certain subcultures a politics literally premised on chaos. The turn of many anarchists these days toward a highly personalistic, presumably "autonomous" subculture at the expense of serious, indeed, responsible social commitment and action reflects, in my view, a tragic abdication of a serious engagement in the political and revolutionary spheres. This is no idle problem today, when increasing numbers of people with no knowledge of History take capitalism to be a natural, eternal social system. A politics rooted in purely relativistic preferences, in assertions of personal "autonomy" that stem largely from an individual's "desire," can yield a crude and self-serving opportunism, of a type whose prevalence today explains many social ills. Capitalism itself, in fact, fashioned its primary ideology on an equation of freedom with the personal autonomy of the individual, which Anatole France once impishly described as the "freedom" of everyone to sleep at night under the same bridge over the Seine. Individuality is inseparable from community, and autonomy is hardly meaningful unless it is embedded in a cooperative community.[3] Compared with humanity's potentialities for freedom, a relativistic and personalistic "autonomy" is little more than psychotherapy writ large and expanded into a social theory.



http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Ar ... ivpro.html

Yep, yep: more Bookchin. No joke.

[Quantum]

17 signs that a full-blown economic Depression Is Raging In Southern Europe

Yet which alternative movements are gaining ground in Southern Europe? The radical right, with their message of ethnic solidarity and self-help, combined with vicious street organisations. They're certainly more electoral successful than bong-smoking unshaven anarchists who rarely bother in engage in the political process. Where's the anarcho-capitalist version of Golden Dawn, Front National and True Finns and when have these ideals ever translated into political success?

[Eran]

Anarchists are also called "libertarian" - as in "Libertarian Socialist" - so both "anarchist libertarian" and "libertarian anarchist" could refer to us as well as to you.

Most people wouldn't characterise a system within which people lose control over their property as soon as they start using it as means for production with the assistance of hired workers as "libertarian". But then again, most people wouldn't consider people who don't mind voluntarily-accepted workplace hierarchies as "anarchist" either. There is no perfect solution to the labeling problem.

Where you're making your mistake, I think, is in supposing Left Anarchists don't "respect property rights." We certainly do - we simply don't recognize PRIVATE ownership of collectively necessary property. You guys do, of course, and that's why I think you really ought to retain "capitalist" as a descriptive term. After all, no other form of anarchism agrees with you on this crucial point, so, like it or not, it really is your defining feature.

How do you regard a system in which most productive enterprises are privately owned by their own workers, but within which different enterprises trade with each other based on free market principles? Is it capitalist?

As for your respecting property rights (and this may be something we covered already), how much respect to you afford my property rights if I lose control over that property as soon as I start using it as means of production?

Anarchism, historically and theoretically, has always been very concrete in its proposals and how to transform society in terms of voluntary and free organization, based fundamentally on cooperation as a precondition of freedom.

The problem is that you cannot have both (1) free society, and (2) blanket prohibition of wage labour. Either you prohibit the latter (in which case your society isn't free), or you allow it (in which case it will arise naturally).

why should we assume that capitalism can exist without overarching power structures such as the modern state?

Don't assume. Remove the power structure of the modern state, and let the chips fall where they may. If you are right, you have nothing to worry about. Capitalism will not re-emerge, as you have removed its overarching power structures. I will happily live in a society in which people voluntarily choose never to work for mere wages.

In other words, capitalism seems inextricably bound up with hierarchical and domineering power structures that enforce property laws and keep labor in check. This has, quite frankly, always been the case in historical capitalism. There is no reason, when taking a sober look at capitalism, that complete laissez faire capitalism would be devoid of domineering authoritarian power structures. It's organization, in fact, depends upon it: e.g. the structure of boss to worker.

Isn't the same also true with respect to socialism? Only don't governments set to support socialism tend to be much more oppressive than those supporting capitalism? If you have any doubt as to which governments tended to be more oppressive, just note which governments erected walls to keep their own citizens in.

[Red Barn]

Most people wouldn't characterise a system within which people lose control over their property as soon as they start using it as means for production with the assistance of hired workers as "libertarian". But then again, most people wouldn't consider people who don't mind voluntarily-accepted workplace hierarchies as "anarchist" either. There is no perfect solution to the labeling problem.

"Most people" in the US, and to some extent in the UK, have a bizarrely mangled "understanding" of political language and history.

Do we really want to encourage this kind of thing? I don't think so.

How do you regard a system in which most productive enterprises are privately owned by their own workers, but within which different enterprises trade with each other based on free market principles? Is it capitalist?

No. I'd call that a very basic form of market socialism. (Mutualism is a system of this type.)

As for your respecting property rights (and this may be something we covered already), how much respect to you afford my property rights if I lose control over that property as soon as I start using it as means of production?

You're right, Eran: we have gone over this. About a hundred times.

[Ambroise]

"Most people" in the US, and to some extent in the UK, have a bizarrely mangled "understanding" of political language and history.

Do we really want to encourage this kind of thing? I don't think so.

Well, in the U.S. a lot of the bizarre understandings, in recent years, are devised and propagated by libertarians and their anarcho-capitalist allies, either as a result of willful ignorance or as a conscious propaganda effort in order to render leftist thought inexpressible and obscure it with liberalism (as TIG has so amply demonstrated on several occasions). So whether the libertarians admit it or not when asked your question, their answer is a 'yes'.

[Red Barn]

LOL!

You're right, of course. (What, after all, is our friend Eran up to with all this faux-innocence about "Libertarian Anarchism"?) I don't know what I could possibly have been thinking.

[Eran]

"Most people" in the US, and to some extent in the UK, have a bizarrely mangled "understanding" of political language and history.

We are having a semantic discussion. What most first-language English speakers understand a word to mean carries a lot of weight.

In any event, I have been meaning to write a post on the true nature of libertarianism, a nature which is routinely misunderstood by many (including many libertarians) and outright distorted by a few (as TIG has so amply demonstrated on several occasions).

[Red Barn]

"True" according to whom, Eran?

We (that is, Ambroise, Anticlimacus and I) are simply pointing out that the words in question already have established scholarly meanings and well documented, easily accessed histories. That's not a question of semantics or of ideologically based opinion; that's just the way it is.

Now, if you simply want to make shit up for your own personal edification, then I don't suppose anybody can stop you. (I could write a 400 page dissertation on the "true" nature of the crocodile if I wanted to, describing every one of its gleaming feathers in loving detail, and I'm sure some nitwit somewhere would accept it as gospel. So what?)

The thing is, I actually do agree with Ambroise: I don't think these "errors" happen by accident; I think that, more often than not, you people are being deceitful entirely on purpose.

[Ambroise]

We are having a semantic discussion. What most first-language English speakers understand a word to mean carries a lot of weight.

Purposely ignoring the scholarly and historical canon of ideologies and putting it up for a popular vote is about as sensible as declaring that the semantics of the theory of thermodynamics is only that which the regular public understands it to be. You wouldn't end up with a very accurate or useful understanding of it, would you? According to you, apparently if it's a matter of semantics, then the only relevant qualification is speaking, as a first language, English (rather than actually having studied the relevant literature).

[anticlimacus]

Don't assume. Remove the power structure of the modern state, and let the chips fall where they may.

Anarchists have known that the state is not the only problem, hence they have never simply been anti-state. To simply chip away at the state is to do nothing except cede more unbridled power to private corporate entities. Sure we may rid ourselves of state support of capitalist agendas, but at the same time we also rid ourselves the power of the state to curb some of the worst atrocities of capitalism. What is worse, is that we simply ignore the fact that there remains massive private institutions that seek to control labor for the sake of capital accumulation. In other words, we are leaving in place a system that is, at its very core, authoritarian and based on fundamental inequality and class divisions, which creates authoritarian institutions (like the modern state) in order to establish and keep its power. I think people rebelling against the capitalist state know better than to simply leave capitalism alone, as if that system itself is not at the very heart of the problem.

The problem is that you cannot have both (1) free society, and (2) blanket prohibition of wage labour. Either you prohibit the latter (in which case your society isn't free), or you allow it (in which case it will arise naturally).

We again are not talking about a neutral abstract revolution. Anarchism would have to grow organically from the ground up. It would require, at least from my opinion, massive institutional support already in the works. In the past this has been worker organization and communication. Going forward there would probably need to be stronger development of coops, communal organization, as well as worker organization to the extent that the state becomes superfluous--but so also does the system of capitalism.

See, I think, the difference between traditional anarchists and ancaps is that ancaps do not see the capitalist system as a system that not only requires and institutes authoritarian institutions, but also, because of the way the system works and the kinds of inequality it produces, it actually produces authoritarian institutions that take away all the substance to the meaning of "voluntary".

[Eran]

"True" according to whom, Eran?

At the moment, me. Hopefully, you as well, once you have read, with an open mind, and found my reasoning compelling.

We (that is, Ambroise, Anticlimacus and I) are simply pointing out that the words in question already have established scholarly meanings and well documented, easily accessed histories. That's not a question of semantics or of ideologically based opinion; that's just the way it is.

I agree. As pointed out, "libertarian" tends to be associated with the right (private property) side, while "anarchist" tends to be associated with the left. Labels such as anarcho-capitalist, anarchist-libertarian or libertarian socialist all span that distinction as they denote relatively-new political views.

Purposely ignoring the scholarly and historical canon of ideologies and putting it up for a popular vote is about as sensible as declaring that the semantics of the theory of thermodynamics is only that which the regular public understands it to be.

The nature of semantic issues is that they are, by necessity, conventional. The relevant audience may well be scholarly, but the question is still of what that audience understands or expects word to mean, rather than what they used to mean in the past.

Do I really need to come up with countless examples of how words have changed their meaning over time?

You wouldn't end up with a very accurate or useful understanding of it, would you? According to you, apparently if it's a matter of semantics, then the only relevant qualification is speaking, as a first language, English (rather than actually having studied the relevant literature).

If it is a question of semantic, what matters is what your audience understands or expects to understand. If you are interested in accurate and useful use of words, relying on obscure historic origins and ignoring your audience is a recipe for obfuscation and confusion, not clarity or accuracy.

We are all holding this discussion on PoFo, and so the relevant criterion for using labels is how other members of PoFo likely to understand the words.

To simply chip away at the state is to do nothing except cede more unbridled power to private corporate entities.

This is a distinctly state-socialist rather than anarchist statement. What you are saying is that in today's society, the state serves to mitigate the power of private corporate entities. The state, in other words, is a useful and valuable institution in your mind.

As a left-anarchist, at the very least, you should say that "Chipping away the state will not be enough". Anarchists tend to understand that the state is an instrument in the hands of private corporate entities. If that is the case, those private corporate entities would have less, not more power if you take away their favourite tool.

See, I think, the difference between traditional anarchists and ancaps is that ancaps do not see the capitalist system as a system that not only requires and institutes authoritarian institutions, but also, because of the way the system works and the kinds of inequality it produces, it actually produces authoritarian institutions that take away all the substance to the meaning of "voluntary".

Ancaps recognise that it is the state, and only the state which has the power to convert peaceful, voluntary cooperation (such as the one between employer and employee) to a confrontational and exploitative relationship.

Without the power of the state in the hands of capitalists, the natural and inevitable competition between them (and between them and worker-syndicates) would be more than enough to ensure the well-being of workers and consumers.

[Red Barn]

The nature of semantic issues is that they are, by necessity, conventional. The relevant audience may well be scholarly, but the question is still of what that audience understands or expects word to mean, rather than what they used to mean in the past.

Rubbish.

Even Wikipedia - surely the most "conventional" of sources - distinguishes the variants of libertarianism based on their relation to property, exactly as has been painstakingly explained to you on numerous occasions:

Propertarian – non-propertarian distinction

Propertarian libertarian philosophies define liberty as non-aggression (an arrangement in which no person or group "aggresses" against any other party), where aggression is defined as the violation of private property. This philosophy implicitly recognizes private property as the sole source of legitimate authority. Propertarian libertarians hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes. They generally support the free-market, and are not opposed to any concentration of power (e.g. monopolies), provided it is brought about through non-coercive means.

Non-propertarian libertarian philosophies hold that liberty is the absence of capitalist authority and argue that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Implicitly, it rejects any authority of private property and thus holds that it is not legitimate for someone to claim private ownership of any resources to the detriment of others. Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. The term libertarian socialism is also used to differentiate this philosophy from state socialism. Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions and workers' councils.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

It's you who are actively trying to undermine this conventional usage by the invention of absurd and misleading terminologies whose purpose, clearly, is to make bank on the ongoing propaganda efforts of existing power structures.



It hardly takes a genius to figure out why you'd find this gambit useful (the similarities between the conventional definition of propertarian libertarianism and the ordinary mechanisms of neoliberal capitalism should be obvious to a ten year old) but you seem to think that your adversaries here are too dimwitted to grasp this.

Why is that, Eran?

[Phred]

It's you who are actively trying to undermine this conventional usage by the invention of absurd and misleading terminologies whose purpose, clearly, is to make bank on the ongoing propaganda efforts of existing power structures.

"Conventional"? Hardly. There are at least 300 million people whose understanding of what "Libertarian" means is that used in the forum description here at PoFo of the "Libertarian" sub-forum - i.e., Classical Liberal.

But if you want to insist that some variants of "Libertarian-this" or "Libertarian-that" can be correctly applied to political systems in which control of private property is lost by peaceful individuals when those individuals choose to use it in a way which leads those in power to seize it from them ... err... socialize it, rather... then fine. What, then, is your preferred description of the political philosophy Eran advocates?

It hardly takes a genius to figure out why you'd find this gambit useful (the similarities between the conventional definition of propertarian libertarianism and the ordinary mechanisms of neoliberal capitalism should be obvious to a ten year old) but you seem to think that your adversaries here are too dimwitted to grasp this.

It seems Lefties have a very difficult time thinking for themselves or putting concepts into their own words. They can't get past labels. Even though Eran has spent literally thousands of words here repeatedly outlining very precisely and non-ambiguously the tenets in which he believes, you Lefties just grind to a halt whenever the word "capitalism" or "libertarian" appears in one of his posts. Is that a ploy to avoid addressing the substantive points he makes or are you genuinely incapable of distinguishing the map from the territory? He doesn't use these terms to attempt to "mislead" anyone - that much is obvious to anyone who can actually comprehend written English.


Phred

*edited typo*

[anticlimacus]

This is a distinctly state-socialist rather than anarchist statement. What you are saying is that in today's society, the state serves to mitigate the power of private corporate entities. The state, in other words, is a useful and valuable institution in your mind.

As a left-anarchist, at the very least, you should say that "Chipping away the state will not be enough". Anarchists tend to understand that the state is an instrument in the hands of private corporate entities. If that is the case, those private corporate entities would have less, not more power if you take away their favourite tool.

How can you not recognize the difference between advocating for state control or a new kind of state, and supporting certain state structures within existing capitalism that support working people, the poor, the elderly, marginalized, etc.? This is not a failure on my part to be an anarchist--Chomsky for instance, holds the same view--it's a recognition of what the reality is, and a failure on your part to do deal with it. As I pointed out, barring some cataclysmic event or series of events, a revolution is going to have be organic. You don't simply take away the state allow the structures of capitalism to go on unhindered.

[Eran]

It seems Lefties have a very difficult time thinking for themselves or putting concepts into their own words. They can't get past labels. Even though Eran has spent literally thousands of words here outlining very precisely and non-ambiguously the tenets in which he believes, you Lefties just grind to a halt whenever the word "capitalism" or "libertarian" appears in one of his posts. Is that a ploy to avoid addressing the substantive points he makes or are you genuiney incapable of distinguishing the map from the territory? He doesn't use these terms to attempt to "mislead" anyone - that much is obvious to anyone who can actually comprehend written English.

Thank you Phred.

Indeed, as I tried to clarify, I am not very interested in semantics. The leftist agenda seems to be to use the following logic:
1. You believe in private property, therefore you are a capitalist
2. 19th century America and Britain were capitalist
3. Therefore you must support whatever was done in the name of capitalism at that time

But

4. We don't believe in private property, therefore we are socialist
5. Neither the Soviet Union nor any other country or society really implemented socialism, as such implementation requires radical re-orientation of human motivation if not nature
6. Therefore the failures of countries acting in the name of socialism have nothing to do with us.

[anticlimacus]

Indeed, as I tried to clarify, I am not very interested in semantics. The leftist agenda seems to be to use the following logic:
1. You believe in private property, therefore you are a capitalist
2. 19th century America and Britain were capitalist
3. Therefore you must support whatever was done in the name of capitalism at that time

But

4. We don't believe in private property, therefore we are socialist
5. Neither the Soviet Union nor any other country or society really implemented socialism, as such implementation requires radical re-orientation of human motivation if not nature
6. Therefore the failures of countries acting in the name of socialism have nothing to do with us.

I think, Eran, you underestimate the extent to which others understand what you have said. You don't prefer being called an "anarcho-capitalist" because you think a voluntary society could go either way. You do, in fact, believe that free markets and private property relations are moral, more efficient, and over all better and in that sense advocate for it, but if people were to choose a different way, so long as it is accomplished through voluntary organization, you would not be opposed to it on moral grounds. Because you would have no problem with worker syndicates and the like developing, you wonder why others would have a problem with private property--if people freely choose it, then how can we morally be against it?

This is where we come to a key difference, and the issue is not just semantics, as you have assumed. As has been discussed by anarchists for centuries, both the institution of private property and the state are systems of domination that have been fundamentally intertwined. Moreover, private property depends on institutions of domination and control, such as the modern state, so it is--and has been--naturally rejected by anarchists. Therefore, we don't seek a neutral revolution. We actively seek to overcome both the state and capitalism in a revolution.

This latter point is where, most recently, Red Barn and Ambroise have questioned either your understanding of libertarianism or your motive for defining it. How, when libertarians have for centuries understood the institution of private property to be a system of power and domination and thus antithetical to an anarchist society, can you now find it to be, not only moral, but an essential option for anarchism? Something odd has happened here in how the term "libertarian" has come to be understood, and it is important to analyze that transformation. That's not just an issue of semantics, but social transformations in media and propoganda.

Denying the premise that the institution of private property is an essential part of the problem really puts you in a different camp, and we can mince words about how you don't demand capitalist relations, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that you find them to be irrelevant to the problem. In fact, quite the opposite you find capitalist relations to be optimal, both on moral and economic grounds!

I think there is honest and valid skepticism of your attempts to gloss over your acceptance of private property by rejecting the term "ancap", and this, I think is why: Indeed, your belief in private property as both moral and efficient really gives you a different political strategy: You simply want to deconstruct the state and leave private property relations alone. As we have debated many times, this seems like a horrendous option. Instead, speaking for myself, I would rather actively seek to overcome both the state and the institution of private property. By succeeding in doing this we, at the same time, create an anarchist society by making both the state and capitalism superfluous. We don't just have a blank slate. We actually have a working system in place, ready to replace the current system of power as a free society. You don't seem to really want to overcome the current system of power--in fact you find half of it, or 3/4 of it, as entirely unproblematic!

[Eran]

I think, Eran, you underestimate the extent to which others understand what you have said. You don't prefer being called an "anarcho-capitalist" because you think a voluntary society could go either way. You do, in fact, believe that free markets and property relations are moral, more efficient, and over all better and in that sense advocate for it, but if people chose a different way, so long as it is accomplished through voluntary organization, you would not be opposed to it on moral grounds. Because you would have no problem with worker syndicates and the like developing, you wonder why others would have a problem with private property--if people freely choose it, then how can we morally be against it?

Thank you. This is a very fair and accurate description of my view on the issues covered.

This is where we come to a key difference, and the issue is not just semantics, as you have assumed.

I don't think for a moment that our differences are "just" (or even mainly) semantic. However, this particular branch in the conversation seemed to focus on semantic issues.

We point to the history of anarchism and how "libertarian" has traditionally been understood precisely because you, and others, seem aghast as to how on earth a real libertarian could be against private property. This points to the fact that leftists do not think private property to be nearly as moral (or efficient) as you assume it to be. As has been discussed by anarchists for centuries, both the institution of private property and the state are systems of domination that have been fundamentally intertwined. Moreover, private property depends on institutions of domination and control, such as the modern state, so it is--and has been--naturally rejected by anarchists.

Words change their meaning over time. The most obvious example is "liberal" which used to refer, broadly, to what in today's US is called "moderate libertarian", but has since come to refer to moderate socialists (or interventionists).

The word "libertarian" may have referred to other things in the past, but in today's society, and for most of the audience for which I write, it tends to suggest belief in the validity of private property.

I can accept that "libertarian" may be modified to indicate otherwise, as in "libertarian socialist" just as the normally-anti-private-property "anarchist" label can be modified using "anarcho-capitalist" and the like.

This latter point is where, most recently, Red Barn and Ambroise have questioned either your understanding of libertarianism or your motive for defining it. How, when libertarians have for centuries understood the institution of private property to be a system of power and domination and thus antithetical to an anarchist society, can you now find it to be, not only moral, but an essential option for anarchism? Something odd has happened here in how the term "libertarian" has come to be understood, and it is important to analyze that transformation. That's not just an issue of semantics, but social transformations in media and propoganda.

The answer is very simple. To quote

In the United States, where the meaning of liberalism has parted significantly from classical liberalism, classical liberalism has largely been renamed libertarianism and is associated with "economically conservative" and "socially liberal" political views (going by the common meanings of "conservative" and "liberal" in the United States), along with a foreign policy of non-interventionism.

I was using the current, American conventional meaning of "libertarian", the one, I believe, most readers of these forums understand the word to mean.

I will gladly relinquish the term "libertarian" to the left, if I could reclaim "liberal" for the right...

Denying the premise that the institution of private property is an essential part of the problem really puts you in a different camp, and we can mince words about how you don't demand capitalist relations, etc. But it doesn't change the fact that you find them to be irrelevant to the problem. In fact, quite the opposite you find capitalist relations to be optimal, both on moral and economic grounds!

Economic, not moral. On moral grounds, I am, as you correctly noted, agnostic. On economic grounds, I expect capitalist system to be more efficient.

As a final note, you may still object that it is all just a semantic issue. But to this I ask, what do we end up debating in the end? The definition of a term? Not really. We end up debating your belief in private property--and conversely our rejection of it--precisely because that is the real sticking point.

I agree. I am happy to move forward. I am satisfied that you understand my view tolerably well. With that in mind, how would you prefer to label it?

And as you must have noted, I have never shied away from defending my belief in both the legitimacy and the economic efficiency of private property. I am not, and have never obfuscated that point. Therefore, I don't agree that the scepticism over my preference not to use "ancap" is honest and valid.

I suspect, rather, that it has more to do with the six points above. Since "capitalism" has acquired a negative connotation (imo, through its association with government intervention), critics on the left insist on tarring people with my view by the label, followed by an insistence on associating my views with the policies and outcomes of the crony-capitalism of the past.

You simply want to deconstruct the state and leave private property relations alone. As we have debated many times, this seems like a horrendous option. Instead, speaking for myself, I would rather actively seek to overcome both the state and the institution of private property. By succeeding in doing this we, at the same time, create an anarchist society by making both the state and capitalism superfluous. We don't just have a blank slate. We actually have a working system in place, ready to replace the current system of power as a free society.

Almost. I believe that state intervention has completely distorted the nature of private property relations. Without the state we would, hopefully, still have private property, but deducing its character by observing its nature under government intervention is no different from deducing the operations of a left-anarchist society by observing Soviet Gulags.

I am willing to allow left-anarchists to distance themselves from the crimes of states which cloaked themselves with the label of "socialism". In return, I expect left-anarchists to similarly allow me to distance myself from the crimes (much more minor in comparison) of states which cloaked themselves with the label of "capitalist".

[anticlimacus]

I agree. I am happy to move forward. I am satisfied that you understand my view tolerably well. With that in mind, how would you prefer to label it?

I think it's anarcho-capitalism through and through, and as I mentioned in my last post, this is fundamentally because it leads to two entirely different strategies: You leave capitalism in place and destroy the state--this leads naturally to anarcho-capitalism, even if there are some syndicates (after all there currently are syndicates, but we don't live in a socialist society). How do we not have some form of anarcho-capitalism if private property is still a mainstay of economic and social function and the modern state no longer exists?--that is unless something like what I suggest occurs:

In contrast, I seek to overcome both the state and capitalism, to make both superfluous. I don't understand anarchism to simply be anti-state. It is anti-authoritarian, where authoritarian structures are unjustified, controlling, and tend towards centralization of power, as I view private property relations do. Thus, I see many of the problems that arise with the modern state (not the state in general) to be problems of capitalism and capitalist relations. To not recognize that, at least so it seems to me, and therefore to simply want to dismantle the state, but leave the heart of the problem in place (the institution of private property), is to be an ancap, or if you prefer something different, an extreme liberal (and yes you are more than welcome to the term "liberal").

I am willing to allow left-anarchists to distance themselves from the crimes of states which cloaked themselves with the label of "socialism". In return, I expect left-anarchists to similarly allow me to distance myself from the crimes (much more minor in comparison) of states which cloaked themselves with the label of "capitalist".

Except for the fact that there is a key difference you are ignoring, and incidentally this is why it is important to point to the history of anarchism. There has been a whole history of writers and movements that were not only counter to hard right Marxist leaning movements (even before the Russian revolution), but also real examples of something different (e.g. Paris Commune, anarchist Spain). The same cannot be said for the Liberals.