Anarcho-capitalism

[RomuliousRevolution]

I'm a member of a forum community which also houses several strong-minded anarcho-capitalists who have led me off the Communist path in the past. I know that soon I will have to defend my return to my Communist roots. I want to be ready.

So, can anyone provide me some good arguments against anarcho-capitalism and/or anarchy in general?


Romulious

[Jack]

Keep yelling SOMALIA! at them.

More seriously, ask them what will happen if workers go on strike, or a sit in. Then just pull out all sorts of things about violent oppression of strikers in the name of property, by private defence as well as the state. Remember the Appalacian Mine War was started because private guards killed miners.

Unless they're the ones that say something to the affect of "Pinkerton's was nothing compared to the violence initiated by coercive union members" (actual quote).

[RomuliousRevolution]

Keep yelling SOMALIA! at them.

:lol:

[gorillafuck]

Keep yelling SOMALIA! at them.
I thought Somalia has Islamic courts?

[Jack]

I thought Somalia has Islamic courts?

But that's "private law" to them.

[gorillafuck]

Source about the courts being privately owned?

(I'm not sympathising with anarcho-capitalists but I do have a feeling that Somalia probably doesn't align with their ideology)

[Jack]

I don't really care for Somali social organization, I haven't looked into it more than Wikipedia and 2 or 3 news articles on the subject, so I'm no expert.

On www.anti-state.com (http://www.anti-state.com) they have a whole section of the forum on Somalia, and blog on it sometimes.

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

I'm a member of a forum community which also houses several strong-minded anarcho-capitalists who have led me off the Communist path in the past. I know that soon I will have to defend my return to my Communist roots. I want to be ready.

So, can anyone provide me some good arguments against anarcho-capitalism and/or anarchy in general?


Romulious

Well, if you're asking, as you implied in the last sentence, for a good argument against anarchy, as an anarchist, I'd be a little biased.

Are you an anarchist that has been swayed by "anarcho"-capitalists in the past, or are you another brand of socialist/leftist?

If you are an anarchist, there's a really easy way to debunk this oxymoron: anarchism has always been vehemently opposed to capitalism! It's as absurd as saying Marxist-capitalist. It takes an ideology, i.e., anarchism, that is antithetical to capitalism, and lumps it together with its polar opposite, i.e., capitalism.

Anarchists oppose domination and oppression in all of its forms. So, the anarcho-capitalist makes the fallacious argument that they are anti-state,hence,anarchist. I mean, a lot of liberals oppose many forms of oppression and domination like sexism, homophobia, and environmental degradation; this of course does not make liberals anarchists. The same applies to the right-wing extremist ideology known as "anarcho"-capitalism.

It's quite scary what they talk about: unabashed private tyranny with no checks on it. I think it's quite obvious what would happen: the property-owners would become a new form of government.

What the "anarcho"-capitalists fail to see is that capitalism and the State are so interwoven at this point in history that they're amalgamated. It's two sides of the same coin. What they speak of is lassaize-faire capitalism, which is what a great deal of the third world attempted (read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine).

But, again, the most important fallacy is that they claim to be anarchists, yet they worship an authoritarian, hierarchical ideology, i.e., capitalism. An Anarchist FAQ dedicates a good chunk to debunking this nonsense for further reading.

[Diagoras]

The primary value position of anarchism is not simple opposition to government. It is opposition to hierarchy and power concentration. The opposition to the state comes consequentially. Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchist, then, because capitalism explicitly supports concentration of power over the means of production in the hands of a few persons, and whatever means are necessary to enforce those claims (including private mercenaries to fulfill policing roles, and for-profit courts to try "crimes"). This is a simple recreation of the state. Actual anarchists could not support such relations, and favor egalitarian and democratic means of social organization .

Ever seen Blade Runner? That is "anarcho"-capitalism ;).

[welshboy]

The Anarchist FAQ was started as a response to some 'anarcho-capitalists' way back in the early days of the web.
www.anarchistfaq.org

[autotrophic]

So the main argument that I have come across for anarcho-capitalism goes something like this:

Since in an anarcho-capitalism there will be no state to enforce property rights, land ownership will be based on a first come first serve basis. If you don't like working for a boss, you can always just quit and: a) work for a new boss b) become self sufficient or c) become a boss yourself. Therefore, there will be no hierarchy or domination and thus it is a form of anarchism.

There are a few problems with this argument:
1) Private ownership of capital requires a state because of the exploitive nature of the capitalist/worker relationship - Point made by Marx
2) The alternatives to working for a boss are not that simple. You cannot just 'become self sufficient' as many ancaps claim. You must first work for a boss in order to acquire your own capital. So you are forced to work for a boss or starve. The same goes for the third option of becoming a boss yourself.
3) What happens when all land in a given area is occupied? Land prices go up, cost of living goes up, and you get roughly the same situation we're in now.
4) Not all land is equally valuable. If someone owns better land than another person (more fertile for farming, easier to access, etc) they naturally have more power over other people
5) Private ownership is essentially a ransom of land.

Hope that helped. If there are other arguments you have trouble with post 'em here!

[Nwoye]

just say that there is no difference between a landlord and a state, that private property is impossible without a state, and that the "axiom" of self-ownership is nonsense.

if you want to come from a more marxist perspective, come at them with marx's social labor theory. they'll shit their pants.

i'll expand on all of those if you wish.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Capitalism will always lead to the creation of a state, slavery and social hierarchy. These so called Anarchists talk about freedom but in reality such a system will lead to increased slavery.

[RomuliousRevolution]

just say that there is no difference between a landlord and a state, that private property is impossible without a state, and that the "axiom" of self-ownership is nonsense.

if you want to come from a more marxist perspective, come at them with marx's social labor theory. they'll shit their pants.

i'll expand on all of those if you wish.


Pleas do.
Esp. the social labour theory.

[Nwoye]

Pleas do.
Esp. the social labour theory.
well the fundamental basis of right-libertarianism (and anarcho-capitalism) is that people own the products of their labor unconditionally, and that they therefore can claim it as property and do whatever they want with it.

however, marx basically said that labor and the fruits of labor only gain exchange value (making the key distinction between use-value and exchange value) through society. because of this, the wealth created from labor is not done privately, but rather socially, as the collective labor and knowledge of all of society is embodied in ones labor. because of this, it was illegitimate to claim private ownership over labor or the fruits of labor, since it is wealth created by society as a whole. his conclusion was thus:
If useful labor is possible only in society and through society, the proceeds of labor belong to society -- and only so much therefrom accrues to the individual worker as is not required to maintain the "condition" of labor, society.
Now accepting this theory would obviously demolish anarcho-capitalism, as it would render their claims to private control over labor (and the means of production) as completely illegitimate.

in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/q-augustwest-general-t109718/index2.html) AugustWest illustrated this theory, and i tried to critique it. i did a pretty mediocre job.

[Cynical Observer]

anarcho-capitalism will devolve into some corporate form of feudalism in a short period of time. Capitalism rewards ruthlessness and exploitation, this coupled with the fact that the only laws anyone would follow in an anarcho-capitalist society are the laws of those with the private armies, and you get a small amount of people controlling massive amounts land and capital, as well their own armies, each considering themselves a law unto themselves, with rights to anything they claim ownership of. This doesn't just create new states, it's worse, it concentrates power not in a corrupt bureaucratic system, but in the hands of the heads of these corporations at the expense of the vast majority of the population, in effect creating a series of mini-fascist states.

Any workers' rights anarcho-cappies imagine will exist under anarcho-capitalism are a delusion. Who's going to stop the CEO with the private army at his disposal from reducing his workers to the level of serfs?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anarcho-capitalism is not just wrong, it's self-contradictory - because any anarcho-capitalist private security organization would be identical to a state in all but name. I've explained why in a past thread:

Click. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarcho-capitalism-empty-t84983/index.html?t=84983)

[RedHal]

if we went anarcho capitalist today, the big corporations will have unlimited freedom to do what they want. You think they will be more socially conscionable or become more tyrannical? Since their motives are profit driven, it's easy to figure out. With their private armies and no restraint, anarcho capitalism will become more oppressive than what we have now, bourgeious democracy. Anarcho capitalism is just so retarded and contradictory.

[Agrippa]

Why bother trying to refute them at all?

[Dimentio]

if we went anarcho capitalist today, the big corporations will have unlimited freedom to do what they want. You think they will be more socially conscionable or become more tyrannical? Since their motives are profit driven, it's easy to figure out. With their private armies and no restraint, anarcho capitalism will become more oppressive than what we have now, bourgeious democracy. Anarcho capitalism is just so retarded and contradictory.

If we want anarcho-capitalist today, people with lotta' weapons would do what they want to do. The big corporations would be at their mercy. We would have gangster capitalism. Why do you thing multinational corporations have invested lots of money into creating pro-western strong states?

Capitalists need strong states to protect them.

[KremlinFriedChicken]

Without feeling the need to elaborate:

Anarcho-capitalists are even worse than neoliberals.
They have nothing to do with revolutionary anarchism or the left in general.
Honestly, I would rather be a reformist-douchebag-thirdway-socialchauvinist than be an anarchocapitalist.

[robbo203]

I'm a member of a forum community which also houses several strong-minded anarcho-capitalists who have led me off the Communist path in the past. I know that soon I will have to defend my return to my Communist roots. I want to be ready.

So, can anyone provide me some good arguments against anarcho-capitalism and/or anarchy in general?


Romulious


The anarcho-caps are very likely to bring the problem of economic calculation in a communist society into the discussion. If it helps, I wrote a long artilce on this a few years back. Check it out on http://www.cvoice.org/CV3cox.pdf. Cheers Robin

[Dimentio]

I'm a member of a forum community which also houses several strong-minded anarcho-capitalists who have led me off the Communist path in the past. I know that soon I will have to defend my return to my Communist roots. I want to be ready.

So, can anyone provide me some good arguments against anarcho-capitalism and/or anarchy in general?


Romulious

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Without a state, you cannot have capitalism, since capitalism requires rules to function. Rules bring predictability, and without predictability, you cannot estimate your gains or losses.

Weak states means that armed gangs will take over the role of the state. Sicily in the 19th century, Lebanon in the 70's, Bosnia in the 90's and todays Somalia shows in what direction such a society will move.